Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FORWARD TRUST BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

UPPER MERSEY NAVIGATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER
CONFIRMATION BILL

To be considered tomorow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Pupil Maintenance Grants

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is taking to improve the provision of maintenance allowances for children at school after obtaining the statutory school leaving age.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This is a matter for each local education authority within its discretionary powers.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are understandable differences between local education authorities but that there are also shocking discrepancies between the provisions made by different authorities? Is she aware, further, that there is a real loss of talented children of poor parents to higher education and that this is sufficiently established for the avoidance of it to be a top priority?

Mrs. Thatcher: There are certain variations, and there are bound to be, where a local education authority has a discretion. Perhaps the number of variations will be reduced with the reorganisation of local education authorities into larger groupings. But in fact these allowances were never intended for those who are of compulsory school age.

Mr. Armstrong: Is the right hon Lady aware that the evidence is that the position of maintenance grants is inadequate in every part of the country and that, until she, as Secretary of State, takes some responsibility for this matter, children who ought to have maintenance allowances and who are now prevented from going on to further and higher education, thereby staying at school longer, will continue to leave school before their potential is achieved?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not accept that all the maintenance allowances are inadequate, although I accept that there is quite a wide variation. We gave a complete list in a parliamentary answer on 16th June 1972.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: May we enlist my right hon. Friend's assistance in trying to persuade the Secretary of State for Social Services that the age for exemption from prescription charges for children be raised to 16 after the school-leaving age has been raised, because this causes considerable hardship? I know that it is not her responsibility, but I should like her help.

Mrs. Thatcher: I will pass on my hon. Friend's message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Educational Priority Areas

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received asking her to designate educational priority areas; and what replies she has sent.

Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir.

Mr. Horam: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the reason why I and other hon. Members keep tabling Questions on an EPA programme is that we believe—and there is ample evidence to back us—that it is the only way we shall get resources on a sufficient scale into areas of social deprivation on Tyneside


or anywhere else? Does the right hon. Lady concede that the dribs and drabs doled out now under the urban aid and other programmes do not add up to the weight of programme required in this sector? Is the right hon. Lady aware that, when this matter was last raised at Question Time, the figures she gave me for spending in this sector added up to only one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total education budget? Will she—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have short supplementary questions.

Mr. Horam: Will not the right hon. Lady do something in this area?

Mrs. Thatcher: The help going into these areas is not limited to the urban programme. The primary school replacement programme goes into these areas to a considerable extent, and the raising of the school leaving age programme is of particular value, especially in those areas.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady will recall that the Halsey Report advocated more or less the same policy as that advocated today by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam). Why does the right hon. Lady choose to ignore it?

Mrs. Thatcher: Far from choosing to ignore it, I am continuing the policy where we have had designated 570 schools of exceptional difficulty. Added to that we have the urban programme, the programme for the replacement of old schools and that for the raising of the school leaving age. They add up to a very considerable joint programme.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Service

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration she is giving to the possible reorganisation of the present methods of determining salaries and conditions of service in the teaching profession.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have seen the arguments which have recently been put forward for negotiating in one forum teachers' conditions of service and their pay. I am always ready to consider changes which seem likely to command widespread support among the parties.

Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would it not be helpful in the context of an incomes policy if such matters as pensions and conditions of service were dealt with at the same time as pay? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the future development of the European Economic Community will make it desirable that terms and conditions of service should be more readily comparable with a view to facilitating the movement of teachers between the countries and the ultimate harmoni-sation of those conditions?

Mrs. Thatcher: It would seem sensible to negotiate these two matters in one forum. However, I must point out that such a change would probably require legislation and so far I have not had a great demand for it. I shall be interested to see whether such a demand develops.

Mr. Stallard: Coming nearer home, may I ask the right hon. Lady, when she considers wages and conditions of teachers in future, to bear in mind the special problems of London teachers in finding accommodation and the effect that this is having on the education service in London?

Mrs. Thatcher: Burnham is the forum for considering wages. Local authorities have considerable powers to help with the problem of finding houses, and I hope that they use those powers.

Selective Secondary Schools

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek to ascertain how many secondary schools now retain a selective method of entry; and what proportion of the total this is.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): No, Sir. This could not be done without a special inquiry in respect of every secondary school. The statistics for the different types of secondary school may be some guide and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Meacher: Is it not true that the Secretary of State has used every legal stratagem in the book, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, many of which she has engineered herself, to keep open


the maximum number of selective schools? Is the Under-Secretary aware that 64 per cent. of 11-year-olds still undergo 11-plus selection? Does he seriously believe that this is what local opinion really wants?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has given effect to the Government's policies, which are based on allowing local authorities full freedom of choice. The 64 per cent. figure given by the hon. Gentleman is out of date. That was the 1971 figure. The figure has now dropped to 60·6 per cent.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman said that the policy was based on giving local authorities "full freedom of choice." Is the Birmingham local authority to be allowed full freedom of choice with the scheme that it submitted five months ago?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government's policy is determined by giving the local authorities maximum freedom of choice. [Interruption.] That is certainly in accordance with Government policy. This makes a most welcome change from the universal compulsory comprehensive schools which the Labour Government attempted to impose upon the country.

Following is the information:

MAINTAINED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND WALES: JANUARY 1972




Number
Per cent.


Comprehensive
…
1,591
32


Grammar 
…
893
18


Modern
…
2,218
44


Technical
…
58
1


Other
…
266
5


Total
…
5,026
100

Student Grants

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations she has had from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors on student grants.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her recent discussions concerning student grants and allowances which she held with interested bodies.

Mrs. Thatcher: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have now considered the representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and other interested parties, and we have decided that from 1st September next the main rates of grant originally fixed for 1973–74 at an amount up to £20 higher than the current rates will be increased by a further £20. This means that the annual rate of grant for students at London and Oxbridge living away from home, now £480, will become £520. The corresponding figures for students at other universities, now £445, will become £485. In addition, to help parents at the lower end of the income scale, the starting point for parental contributions will be raised from £1,100 residual income to £1,500 and parents with residual incomes of £1,500 to just below £2,000 will pay less than they do at present. With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dalyell: This is obviously a major announcement. If, in the context of pensions, the right hon. Lady's Cabinet colleagues boast of the principle of an annual uprating, should there not be an annual uprating for students too? Is it because old people are generally thought to be popular and perhaps students are generally thought to be unpopular?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think it has anything to do with that. Hitherto, student grants have been determined on a triennial basis. We operated that procedure last time. This is an interim settlement. We shall soon be starting the next triennial round.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this announcement will give some satisfaction to the student body, about which I have been pressing for a long time? May I ask whether there has been any result from the inquiry into the costs of halls of residence which was being undertaken by the University Grants Committee?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have not yet had any results of that inquiry from the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Eadie: Any announcement by the right hon. Lady that there should be an increase in allowances must be welcomed, but it is doubtful whether it is enough. Does she agree that it must have become


a regular occurrence for the Department to be getting letters from Members of Parliament about complaints made by students of the financial difficulties they are having regarding grants and allowances? Does she think it proper that the only advice that can be given to Members of Parliament is that students should apply for social security and supplementary allowances? Does she think that this is the solution to the problem?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have just announced a considerable increase in student grants and a considerable advantage to parents at the lower end of the income scale regarding the contribution they would otherwise have to make for their student children. I hope that both these matters will be very welcome.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important part of her announcement is the change in the parental contribution scale? Is she aware that the Federation of Conservative Students has pressed for it for some time and will be delighted that she has done it? In percentage terms, may I ask what her announcement means for the student who is not at Oxbridge?

Mrs. Thatcher: Between 1970 and 1973 there has been an increase in student grants from £380 to £485, which is 27·6 per cent. over the three years.

Mr. Moyle: Does the right hon. Lady agree that any satisfaction afforded to the students will be minimal since the announcement that she has made does not meet their original claim, and that this is important for people on very low incomes because they suffer unduly from increases in food prices which eat away a substantial amount of the grant? Is she also aware that the Opposition are dissatisfied that she has taken no steps to abolish the discrimination regarding married women students, for which the NUS has been asking, and that she has made no attempt to reconcile the discretionary award with a mandatory award situation?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman has put three supplementary points. I have just announced an increase of 9 per cent. this year for students not at Oxbridge. That is a considerable increase. The 9 per cent. increase this year makes a total of 27·6 per cent. over the three

years. The grant for a married woman living in the matrimonial home will also go up by £20 a year—the first increase since 1965.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to be put off by the Opposition's sour response? It is clear that she has faced this problem in a sensible and practical fashion with the result that she has taken this point from their armoury of abuse.

Mrs. Thatcher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly aware that the help on the parental income scale will be extremely valuable. In all, the minimum has been raised by £600 in the space of two years.

Mr. Mark Hughes: May I ask the right hon. Lady to tell the House whether there has been any change in the age limit for parental income disregard, which causes a great deal of difficulty where students who are well over 21 are still having their parents' income taken into account?
Secondly, may I ask her to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) about the problem of discretionary as opposed to mandatory grants?

Mrs. Thatcher: This is an interim settlement. There have been no fundamental changes in discretionary awards or in age limits.

Mr. Marten: What is the total estimated cost of this increase?

Mrs. Thatcher: About £10 million in a year.

Following are the details:

CHANGES IN PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS


Residual Income
Present contribution
Revised contribution


£
£
£


1,100
30
Nil


1,200
40
Nil


1,300
50
Nil


1,400
60
Nil


1,500
70
30


1,600
80
50


1,700
100
70


1,800
110
90


1,900
120
110


2,000
130
130


2,500
180
180


3,000
230
230


3,500
280
280


4,000
330
330


Continues at the rate of £1 for every complete £10 of income.

RATES OF GRANT FOR STUDENTS TAKING FIRST DEGREE AND COMPARABLE COURSES AND FOR STUDENTS IN COLLEGES OF EDUCATION



Rates previously agreed
New rate



1972–73
1973–74
1973–74



£
£
£


London University and other establishments of higher and further education in the London area, and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge
480
500
520


Elsewhere
445
465
485


At home
355
370
390


Maintenance for study abroad
480
500
520


Married women living in their husband's home
275
275
295


College of education students (England and Wales) in residence
200
210
220


1. The rates for postgraduate students already agreed for 1973-74 will also be increased by £20.


2. The rates for student members of religious orders in England and Wales will be increased by £10.

Mr. Selwyn Gammer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue advice to local authorities faced with parents who refuse to sign grant forms for children wishing to go to university.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No specific advice has been given with regard to signing forms. My Department wrote to all local education authorities on 27th September 1968 asking them to ensure that parents who were required to make a contribution to their student son or daughter were reminded of their responsibility for making up the grant to the full amount of the total maintenance figure.

Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that some students find that their parents will not sign the grant form and are unable to receive the grant? Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities are as helpful as possible in such cases so that students are not excluded from university by parents who do not wish them to go?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. I have considerable sympathy with students whose parents refuse to make a declaration of their income. I undertake to do what I can to help to achieve equity in these rare but difficult cases.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Minister said that he would undertake to do what he can. What can he do?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that local education authorities, when they meet cases which are strictly within the rules, try to be as helpful as possible in finding a way to meet the need. In that respect, I think that the advice of the

Department and the attitude of Ministers can be of help.

Nursery Education

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will ensure that those local education authorities, already having a high proportion of rising fives in full-time education, will not be penalised when allocating resources for nursery school provision under her Department's circular 2/73.

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware that some local authorities, such as Southampton, which has a very good record for having rising fives in full-time education, are worried that the formula outlined in circular 2/73 will mean that they will be penalised when it comes to the allocation of funds for nursery school education because some of those rising fives will be taken into consideration in the calculation?

Mrs. Thatcher: The rising fives are those who go to school in the term in which they become five. The decisive factor for the nursery school programme is not the number in school but the number out of school whose need is still for nursery places. Otherwise, we should be in great difficulty with the urban programme if we had more in schools than elsewhere. Therefore, the determining factor is the numbers out of school who need nursery education.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the provision of staff and equipment for four-year-olds and rising fives in nursery schools.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have asked local education authorities to ensure that the hours of attendance, staffing, programmes, accommodation and equipment available to pupils under five are equivalent to those appropriate to nursery classes.

Miss Lestor: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that with the policy of taking rising fives and four-year-olds into primary schools there is growing evidence of concern in the teaching profession that large numbers of these children are taken into classes of 30, that there is no extra help, and that in a primary school it is ridiculous to try to imagine that rising fives and four-year-olds will obtain nursery education unless exactly the same conditions apply to the primary school as apply to those of the same age in nursery schools?

Mrs. Thatcher: When I announced the nursery programme, which the hon. Lady was not able to do, it was a great advance to have rising fives and some under-fives in school because it was a great help to them. Now we have a nursery programme, which the hon. Lady was never able to announce, and we have asked for the full staffing standards for nursery classes for the under-fives.

Mr. Fell: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that children of this tender age are far better off in the hands of their mothers than in these play schools and so on?

Mrs. Thatcher: For the majority of children, part-time nursery education is very welcome on educational grounds. I do not believe that taking them away from their mothers for about three hours a day in term time deprives them.

Mrs. Renée Short: Last week I had the opportunity of visiting a college of education in London and meeting some of the heads of schools who would shortly be taking a nursery intake under the expansion programme. Is the right hon. Lady aware that I was told on that occasion of four-year-olds in classes not of 30, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said, but of 40 children? This is not a pupil/teacher ratio that one would want to see in any sector of education and certainly not in a sector which purports to give nursery education. Ought not the right hon. Lady to investigate this matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities have a discretion whether to take in these children. I am surprised that there are local education authorities which are taking four-year-olds—whom they do not have to take in—into classes which appear to be over-sized.

Petroleum Engineering

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on discussions between her Department and the Institute of Petroleum with regard to the organisation of courses in petroleum engineering in the United Kingdom, in the light of the recommendations in the IMEG report.

Mrs. Thatcher: There have been no such discussions, but a group of officials from my own and other interested Departments, including the University Grants Committee, are urgently considering the education and training needs of the offshore industry, and will shortly be consulting bodies such as the Institute of Petroleum.

Mr. Douglas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the institute is in discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry on this particular topic? Will she use her good offices to look at the situation that is arising when a number of universities are embarking on such courses? Will she discuss with the University Grants Committee the formulation of a policy for a top-class research institution in offshore technology in the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Thatcher: As I have just informed the House, the University Grants Committee has an official on this group who will shortly be consulting the Institute of Petroleum. I hope that getting these two and other interested bodies together will produce the desired results.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have just come from the Department of Mechanical Engineering of University College, London, which is one of the few universities in this country which runs an M.Sc. course in ocean engineering? Did she know that there has been absolutely no contact between her Department and that department since the IMEG report and that it


has had no conact with the Department of Trade and Industry either?

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that that problem will be remedied now that the University Grants Committee has an official on the group who will carefully seek to identify the education and training needs of industry, to see whether they are already being fulfilled and, if not, to make arrangements to fulfil them.

Mr. Moyle: In view of what the right hon. Lady said earlier this afternoon, does not she agree that the last answer she gave on this matter on 10th April was very complacent? It is no use listing the appropriate departments of universities. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that no training in oil drilling engineering is taking place in this country at present and that we need these oil drilling engineers if the sub-contracting business in the North Sea is to go to British firms and not to American firms?

Mrs. Thatcher: Before coming to the House today, I carefully inquired as to whether we had had any complaints from industry about a lack of education or training facilities which created manpower problems. I was told that we had had none. I am given to understand that among the top skills in the offshore industry, including petroleum engineers, there is already a significant and growing element of United Kingdom personnel.

School Leavers (Preparation for Employment)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she is taking to assist prospective school leavers to adjust themselves to future employment.

Mrs. Thatcher: I expect to receive shortly the results of a survey by Her Majesty's inspectors of careers education and guidance in secondary schools, on the basis of which I can consider what future help and advice may be needed. Also, when the Education (Work Experience) Bill has completed its remaining stages, I shall be offering advice to local education authorities about suitable arrangements.

Mr. Duffy: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Does she agree that it is not merely information that school leavers require but conditioning for a totally alien

world, not only of custom and practice, but also of freedom and responsibility? Will she invite local authorities to look at Sheffield's work experience unit, which enables school leavers to exchange three months of their final year at school for three months in a local factory?

Mrs. Thatcher: I doubt very much whether that would come within the terms of the Education (Work Experience) Bill. A straight exchange does not sound like the kind of thing which the Bill was designed to meet. Otherwise, I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Although the small Bill at present in Committee is very good for those who want work experience, is it not vital to let parents know exactly what is going on, because often in the past parents have not been well informed?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that that is an important factor, and that very careful arrangements must be made to implement the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Lady agree that adjustment to employment demands certain standards of numeracy and literacy? Does she recall that when I asked her some time ago whether she would make a survey of the standards of numeracy and literacy of all school leavers, she did not think that she should do so? Will she reconsider this matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: In both of those spheres, what we have done is to see that we get better standardised tests of attainment, both in literacy, which is being dealt with by the Bullock Committee, and for numeracy. The standardised tests do not exist at present.

School Building Standards

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the increase in building costs, she is satisfied that standards of school building, particularly in relation to space and quality of materials, are being maintained.

Mrs. Thatcher: Cost limits for school, further education, college of education, polytechnic and university projects will be increased by 22 per cent. with effect from 1st April 1973. All school projects approved by my Department conform to


the requirements of the Standards of School Premises Regulations 1972.

Miss Fookes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on two good announcements this afternoon?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am very grateful.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. Lady say how that figure was arrived at?

Mrs. Thatcher: By taking into account the increases in costs which have occurred since the last increase.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many local education authorities, such as the London borough of Ealing, for example, are endeavouring to struggle to make into reality a comprehensive system within their areas, and that these increases in costs are having very sad and deleterious effects? The figures that she has announced today will not be of very great help. Will she consider holding a conference of local authorities which find that building costs are inhibiting their efforts, in order to see what she can do to help them?

Mrs. Thatcher: The 22 per cent. increase in cost limits is the largest ever announced. A 22 per cent. increase in one year is a very considerable figure.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement concerning cost limits on new school buildings and the adequacy of the current school building regulations.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have just announced, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes), that cost limits will be increased by 22 per cent. with effect from 1st April 1973. The requirements set out in the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972. which have been endorsed by successive Governments, are kept under review.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady assure us that the standards that will now be possible as a result of the 22 per cent. increase will be equivalent in quality and size to the school buildings which have been erected in the past? Is she aware that her two Under-Secretaries have refused to provide any evidence which shows that the current school

building regulations are based on any sound educational criteria and, moreover, have refused to discuss this with me on at least two occasions?

Mrs. Thatcher: The building regulations have been endorsed by successive Governments over many years. The standard of school buildings is well above the minima provided for.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to have a look at those standards as they apply to fire risk, because there is considerable worry in certain parts of the country that fire risk standards are not tight enough?

Mrs. Thatcher: We have already been doing that. I will send my hon. Friend a detailed bulletin about this.

Mr. Marks: What was the cause of the delay in the statement? It was six weeks later than last year.

Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look, he will find that the announcement in spring 1970 came in February, in 1971 it came in March, in 1972 it came in April and in 1973 it has come in May.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend considered whether, in view of the shortage of building and construction workers, her Department is making the best use of factory-built units for school building?

Mrs. Thatcher: There are a number of factory-built schools being erected by local authority consortia. We leave the method of construction to the local education authorities, which is best in the circumstances.

Primary School Replacements

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the current programme of primary school replacements; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: Programmes for the four years 1972–76 include provision for the replacement or improvement of about 2,000 old primary schools at a cost of about £200 million at 1972 prices.

Mr. Madel: Will my right hon. Friend look at Bedfordshire's primary school replacement programme in detail, as the


rise in the county's population is such that we are not keeping pace with primary school needs there? Will my right hon. Friend see whether she can get the county to accelerate its programme dramatically?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am always prepared to look at individual programmes. Regarding the replacement of primary school programmes, when the four programmes have been completed Bedfordshire will be over half way towards the replacement or improvement of its pre-1903 accommodation for primary pupils. That is well up to the national standard. But I shall have a further look at this matter today in view of my hon. Friend's representations.

Miss Lestor: The right hon. Lady was asked whether she was satisfied with the primary school replacement programme. Will she say, in view of what she has said about the programme, how long she considers that it will take to replace the 300 pre-1903 primary schools in use in the Inner London Education Authority areas?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot. When I first came to consider the programme I thought that the last Government had left me only 3,000 last-century primary schools. By the time the programme had really got under way we discovered that the problem was even larger than we thought. In fact, there were between 6,000 and 7,000 such schools. That only shows how right the Government were to concentrate on replacing old primary schools.

National Union of Teachers (President)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek to arrange a meeting with the newly-elected President of the National Union of Teachers.

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will have discussions with the newly-elected President of the National Union of Teachers.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is my usual practice to see the president at his request. I have no immediate plans to invite him to a meeting.

Mr. Cox: Is not the right hon. Lady fully aware of the detailed and general criticism which was made by the recently-elected president of her education policies and, in particular, of the callous indifference which she continues to show about the London teachers' allowance and London school buildings? Does she not think in view of the importance of these matters to people and to children, that she should have the courage to face a public debate so that the people of Great Britain can judge her policies as against the problems which the NUT is now experiencing?

Mrs. Thatcher: The President of the NUT made certain criticisms. Indeed, he received a very effective reply.

Mr. Stallard: Will the right hon. Lady try to discuss with the President of the NUT the terrible plight of young teachers who are trying to find living accommodation in London? Is she aware that the teachers have put forward constructive proposals for the solution of some of these problems in Inner London? Further, is she aware that the price of property in London is far beyond the reach of teachers even in posts of responsibility earning £3,000 per annum or thereabouts? Does she realise that it is impossible for young teachers, even taking joint incomes into account, to get mortgages to buy living accommodation in London? Will she seek an urgent meeting with the President of the NUT to discuss his constructive proposals for a solution?

Mrs. Thatcher: I understand from the latest Burnham settlement that at the request of teachers no increase was made in the London allowance. It is customary after the conference of the National Union of Teachers for the executive to see me and to discuss the resolutions.

Primary Schools (Class Size)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average size of classes in primary schools in England and Wales and in Walsall, respectively; and what is the programme for providing more modern primary school places in Walsall.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In January 1972, the latest date for which figures are available, the average size of primary classes was 31·3 in England and Wales and 33·5


in Walsall. Ten major primary school projects providing 2,400 places at a cost of nearly £1 million have been included in Walsall's building programmes for the next three years.

Mr. Stonehouse: I accept that some progress has been made. Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the older industrial areas, such as Walsall, there is a very serious problem of out-of-date school conditions and over-size classes? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to give every encouragement to the school building programme in such localities?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are already doing that. The Walsall authority, in addition to the places which I have mentioned, has been allocated £115,000 and £90,000 to spend on minor works during 1973–74 and 1974–75 respectively. A start will be made in 1973–74 on new buildings for the St. Thomas of Canterbury Roman Catholic School.

Somerset House (Theatre Museum)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in arranging the establishment of a theatre museum in Somerset House; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction hopes to make an announcement about the use of Somerset House for this purpose before the recess.

Mr. Strauss: I am very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's answer. In view of the large number of interests involved and the consequential danger of delay in bringing this admirable venture to fruition, will the hon. Gentleman take some responsibility himself in ensuring that his Department carries out the necessary negotiations with vigour and speed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to be more forthcoming to the right hon. Gentleman but unfortunately the responsibility for this building does not fall within the responsibility of my noble Friend or myself. I am most sympathetic to the project which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he will be patient, I feel that his dreams may be fulfilled.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is recognised that there are what are known as interdepartmental influences which can be brought to bear? As far as they exist in his Department, will he make certain to use them? Is he aware that we are the centre of theatre-land in the world and that its economic advantages go far beyond the cultural influences? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter to which full attention should be given because of its great potential?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have never thought of myself as an inter-departmental influence. I shall do my best to see that the project is brought to a conclusion satisfactory to all parties.

Boarding School Fees (Dorset)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consents have been given for increases in boarding school fees charged by public authorities in Dorset; what percentage increases they represented; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: None. Consent was not required for increases before the commencement of the counter-inflation programme. No increases occurred during stage 1; those proposed to take effect during stage 2 must be consistent with the Price and Pay Code.

Mr. King: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not in the educational interests of any child that on financial grounds he should be removed from a school in the course of his school career? Is he aware that since 1969 the local authority-controlled school in question has increased fees by no less than 99 per cent. during the school lifetime of a child and is now proposing an increase of 20 per cent.? Will he use his influence to ensure that that does not happen?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I certainly regret the interruption of any child's education. Of course, local education authorities determine their own fees for boarding schools which they maintain. The Department's consent is not required and the Department has no power to intervene. I am sure that my hon. Friend will use his influence in this matter.

Mr. Marks: What does the Price and Pay Code say about school fees? Does it affect private school fees? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are reports of fees being doubled since the freeze?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Responsibility for the Price and Pay Code does not fall within the sphere of my Department.

Pre-School Education (Birmingham)

Mr. Sidney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the numbers of children in the City of Birmingham receiving nursery education and in other pre-school groups; how this figure compares with a year before; and what is her estimate of the figures a year hence.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In January 1973 there were about 9,000 pupils under five in maintained primary and nursery schools, 1,000 more than a year earlier. The local education authority expects a further increase of about 1,000 pupils by January 1974.

Mr. Chapman: While I welcome that trend and know that my hon. Friend understands the desperate need for educational and child-minding facilities for the under-fives, at least in parts of that city, may I ask him to arrange for the closest co-ordination between other Government Departments and the local authority to see that as many of these places as possible go to the parts of the city where there is most need, particularly those parts which have social problems?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the social problems in parts of Birmingham. Of the under-fives in school in January this year, nearly half were in nursery schools or classes and the rest were in other classes in primary schools.

Deprived Areas

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she is taking to ensure that the criteria for identifying areas of educational deprivation are uniformly applied.

Mrs. Thatcher: In allocating capital resources to local education authorities for the expansion of nursery education I

shall take account of data from the census and elsewhere on housing, income and occupation. It is for authorities themselves to decide how to use these and other resources within their own areas.

Mr. Deakins: Would it not be advisable for the right hon. Lady to issue some guidelines to local education authorities about this matter so that we do not find ourselves in the absurd situation that educationally deprived children in some areas receive special help under the urban programme while similar children elsewhere are denied that help?

Mrs. Thatcher: We give general guidance to local education authorities. We rely upon them to know where the most difficult areas are within their boundaries. We do the general allocation for nursery provision and within that allocation rely on local knowledge.

School Building Programme (West Riding)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will give the total amounts of money allocated for secondary and primary school building, respectively, in the West Riding of Yorkshire for each of the past four years.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite deplorable that children should have to go outside the school and across a yard to the toilets? When will his Department do something for the Jump Primary School in Wombwell, and for the Swinton Fitzwilliam School, replacement for which has been promised for a long time? Can he also do something for the Wombwell Catholic School, which urgently requires extra classrooms, despite what the right hon. Lady said the other week?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Allocations for the replacement or improvement of nineteenth century primary schools in the first year for which my right hon. Friend was responsible have considerably exceeded the total in the previous three years. I am certainly willing to look at the position of the schools the hon. Member


has mentioned. I can tell him that the new preliminary list of school building projects expected to start in or after

WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE


Allocations in £ million at 1972 prices





Major school building programmes
Minor works






Primary
Secondary
programmes



Starts Year
Improvement Programme
Remainder ("Basic Need")
RSLA Allocations
Remainder ("Basic Need")
(Primary and Secondary)
Total


1969–70
…
…
0·2
2·3
—
2·5
1·6
 6·6


1970–71
…
…
0·4
 2·5
1·3
3·5
1·6
9·3


1971–72
…
…
0·3
1·2
1·9
2·9
1·7
8·0


1972–73
…
…
1·4
1·2
2·4
2·7
1·8
9·5


Total
…
2·3
7·2
5·6
11·6
6·7
33·4

PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)

Ql. Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has to meet President Pompidou.

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to place the common agricultural policy on the agenda for his forthcoming meeting with the President of France.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for an official meeting with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I shall be having talks with President Pompidou in Paris on 21st and 22nd May. There will be no formal agenda but the meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss matters of mutual interest. I do not propose to announce in advance the subjects which are likely to be covered.

Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend last met President Pompidou they discussed regional planning. In view of the announcement by Commissioner George Thomson yesterday, does he feel that the location of major international airports is a relevant factor in economic planning within the Community?

The Prime Minister: What we discussed at the summit was the question of regional development policy from the

1975–76 includes replacement of the Swinton Fitzwilliam junior school.

Following are the figures:

point of view of the financial backing for it. We did not go into the question of detailed planning of either manufacturing industry or airports. This is not a question which President Pompidou would expect me to raise with him. Certainly the new airport at Roissy, outside Paris, is some distance from Paris—in exactly the same way as Maplin is from London, if that is what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Prime Minister accept that Britain has a moral duty to dissuade the French from further nuclear testing, both as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and because there is likely to be serious fall-out in the Pacific? Is the Prime Minister being evasive on this moral issue because he does not want to delay discussions on Anglo-French nuclear co-operation?

The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no relationship between Anglo-French nuclear co-operation and any tests which the French Government may decide to conduct in future. As I have told the House, President Pompidou's view has been that the time is not right for discussing Anglo-French nuclear co-operation.

Mr. Strang: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to President Pompidou that the people of Britain are not only unwilling to accept an agricultural policy which deliberately maintains artificially high food prices when compared with world prices, but that they resent having to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of such a policy? Will he also tell President Pompidou that in


the context of the present review of the common agricultural policy France must be prepared to introduce schemes giving direct support to producers as opposed to making them totally dependent on high farm gate prices?

The Prime Minister: I do not think one achieves the results one desires in international affairs by telling another country that it must be prepared to accept this or that, any more than it would achieve the same result with us by that process. What is important is that it was agreed at the meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture that there should be a complete review of the agricultural policy. As a member of the Community, we can now play a full part in that.

Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the President that the common regional policy is as important to us here as the common agricultural policy is to the French? Will he, secondly, seek to assure a positive response, not only from French but from Europe, to Dr. Kissenger's call for a new Atlantic alliance?

The Prime Minister: There is certainly no need for me to impress this upon President Pompidou because it was as a result of the talks I had with him that there was agreement that the regional policy was as important to us as the common agricultural policy is to France. It was on this basis that it was included in the summit communiqué and agreed by the remaining Heads of Government. As for Dr. Kissenger's recent speech, both countries have already made it clear that we hope to make a positive contribution in reply to it.

Mr. Dalyell: Reverting to the nuclear tests, will the Prime Minister assure us that there is no grain of truth in Chapman Pincher's assertion that we are in a rather weak position with President Pompidou because we want to conduct at least one test of our own?

The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no grain of truth in that. We have no immediate plans for testing—

Mr. Dalyell: What does the Prime Minister mean by "immediate"?

The Prime Minister: I mean that we have no immediate plans for testing

United Kingdom warheads. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the word "immediate", he should stop taking part. Any tests which we may make to keep our nuclear warheads up to date— as we are pledged to the House to do— are taken underground. That is permissible under the partial test ban treaty. There is, therefore, absolutely no relationship between anything that a British Government might wish to do in the future by way of underground testing and testing in the air.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the principal objection of the major Commonwealth countries in the Southern Hemisphere to the continuance of these French nuclear tests the intrusion of a European Power into their territory? Is not this a grave issue because the Australians and New Zealanders sincerely believe that Britain is bending over backwards to fall into line with the policies of a European power in the Community to the detriment of their interests?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must himself judge the reason for the position which Australia and New Zealand have taken up. The French Government are entitled to claim that the test is taking place in French territory.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Rubbish.

The Prime Minister: Surely it is other matters which people consider. The question of the degree of fall-out is the reason why we have always urged that all countries—not only France, but also China—should adhere to the partial test ban treaty.

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY (PHASE 3)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to finalise and publish the provisions of phase 3 of the prices and incomes policy.

The Prime Minister: It is as yet too early to say. Proposals for stage 3 will be published well before stage 2 ends, which we at present envisage will be at about the end of October.

Mr. Hamilton: As phase 3 is likely to be effective before the House comes


back after the Summer Recess, will the Prime Minister ensure that we have the opportunity to debate this and related matters before we rise for the Summer Recess? Does the Prime Minister's announcement that nothing is barred from discussion mean that the TUC will be able to discuss the possibility of abandoning or freezing increased council house rents, an increase in family allowances and, possibly, the payment of wages through accounts held in the Cayman Islands?

The Prime Minister: The TUC was not only able to but did discuss all the questions which the hon. Gentleman has raised, with the exception of the last one, when we had talks in Chequers and at No. 10 last summer and last autumn. The TUC is well aware that it can raise all matters of this kind which it wishes to discuss.
It will not be possible to announce the details of stage 3 before the House rises in July. That is quite apparent, because we have asked the Pay Board to go into the question of the anomalies which are presented to it by any union or person. Its report is expected at the latest towards the middle of September. We are well aware of the undertakings which have been given to the House about making available the information which is to go into any future code.

Mr. Tugendhat: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the TUC and the CBI, will he point out to them that one manifestation of the success of the Government's policies is that the pound is now one of the strongest currencies in the world, that in the last two months it has appreciated substantially against the dollar and quite significantly against the French franc, the guilder and the lira, and that this bodes extremely well for the outlook of our import prices?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is right—[Laughter.] It may be natural for hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches not to wish to see the pound strong. From the point of view of exports, we have a sufficient margin of competitiveness with the pound at its present level, and from the point of view of imports of food and raw materials it is of benefit to us that the pound floats upwards.

Mr. Harold Wilson: With reference to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), does he recall that last year when the trade unions tried to raise matters like rents, food prices, school meals and school milk, he ruled them out in this House on 6th November as being political matters—

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: That appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of 6th November at col. 630.
The Prime Minister will also recall interrupting me when I accused him of this and again confirming that these subjects were barred because, as he said, they were political matters decided by the Government.

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: He said that. Are we to take the more helpful attitude of the Lord President of the Council at Cambridge who nine days ago said that nothing will be ruled out, nothing barred, and that the Government are now prepared to consider whether they will make changes in respect of these previously closed political issues to enable agreement to be reached for phase 3?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that not only were the trade unions able to raise these matters: they did discuss them at Chequers and at the No. 10 talks. They discussed pensions, family allowances, the level of rents and rent rebates. All these matters were discussed. What I made plain to the House and to the TUC and the CBI was that the legislation to enable us to become a member of the European Community, the Act to deal with housing finance and other Acts of this kind had been passed by Parliament and we were not prepared to repeal them. What we were fully prepared to do was to take into account the consequences of this legislation in, for example, the level of rents which had now been fixed, and, where we thought it right, to deal with that. We did so on two occasions following those talks. We dealt with rents by greatly putting up the needs allowance.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman simply telling us that discussion was not ruled out of order and will not be


ruled out of order again but that, as he has made clear to the House and has not changed this afternoon, he rejected changes in policy on these matters? Does the Lord President's statement mean that the Prime Minister is now prepared to go into the talks with an open mind and change the policy on housing, rents and school meals—where the increase was deferred only for stage 2—or will he close his mind to these questions just as he did last November?

The Prime Minister: The position remains exactly the same. If the trade unions want to raise the question of increased rents and their consequences, or the impact of going into the Community on food prices, or any of these matters, they are perfectly free to put forward their views. They know us well enough to know that we have an open mind and are prepared to listen to them. [Laughter.] That only demonstrates the vast gulf which now exists between the trade union leaders and the Labour Party.

CBI AND TUC (TALKS)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his plans for renewed talks with the TUC and CBI on countering inflation.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for a further meeting with the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I welcome the decisions of the CBI and the TUC to take part in the discussions which I have proposed. I shall be meeting the TUC on 17th May and the CBI on 30th May.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as everyone now understands that Britain is enjoying an unprecedented even sensational economic boom exceeding all previous post-war growth rates, there is an increasing realisation among trade unionists, official and unofficial, that the essential priority of the rate of economic growth should not be jeopardised by excessive wage inflation in phase 3?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think there is a general realisation of this. I ask my

hon. Friend to recognise that for this country to have an average rate of growth of 5 per cent. is not a boom condition or something that is outstanding for a Western industrial country. It is less than half the growth rate of Japan for the last 16 years. It is less than the average growth rate of many of our European partners. I hope, therefore, that we shall keep this in balance. At the same time, we should be reassured by the fact that the figures of industrial production put out earlier today show an increase of one and a half points for March over February, that the increase in total output between the second half of 1971 and the latest three months is nearly 6 per cent., adjusted to an annual rate of growth, and that for manufacturing alone there is a corresponding increase of about 6½ per cent. These are very encouraging figures, but our task now is to ensure that they are sustained.

Mr. Ashley: How does the Prime Minister justify the double standard of constantly refusing to intervene in the great national scandals of big business, whether due to the damage caused by defective products or the dubious morality in boardrooms, while he constantly intervenes and moralises about the legitimate wage claims of trade unions? Where is the logic of that attitude?

The Prime Minister: I have never advocated defective products, nor unethical matters in boardrooms. Indeed, in my speech at Perth on Saturday afternoon I specifically condemned the latter and I do so in this House now. If there are products which are defective, we have laws under which those responsible can be brought to account. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of where the law is defective in this respect, it can be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry. As for the procedures in boardrooms, they can when brought to light be examined by the Department concerned from the point of view of either tax or company law, which in any case we propose to modernise in the next Session.

Mr. Adam Butler: Bearing in mind the important, indeed the essential, rôle which productivity deals have to play in maintaining economic growth, will my right hon. Friend listen favourably to representations made to him by the TUC


and CBI on this point for implementation in phase 3?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We are fully prepared to discuss with the TUC and CBI the question of productivity arrangements if they wish to raise them. In any case we shall wish to raise them ourselves in phase 3. It is well known that a number of trade union leaders have pointed to the opportunities of introducing so-called productivity arrangements which do not justify themselves. What they said to us during the Chequers talks was that this causes bitterness between unions and workers because they regard it as unfair that there should be a productivity arrangement which is not justified. Therefore, it would be necessary to work out with them, and perhaps with others who can give us advice, what would be the best form of justifiable productivity arrangements.

Mr. Grimond: When the Prime Minister talks to the CBI, will he ask it to condemn unequivocally the sort of goings on that we have all read about at Lonrho which are fatal to any counter-inflation policy? Will he also point out to the CBI that greed does not now seem to be a monopoly of the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: It would not be necessary for me to ask the CBI to make a statement of that kind, and as a responsible body it should be prepared to make its own statement. I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will not exaggerate to the extent of saying that an incident of this kind is fatal to the counter-inflation policy. It is the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, but one should not suggest that the whole of British industry consists of practices of this kind.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will show no enthusiasm whatever for the bizarre attitude of Mr. Campbell Adam-son in desiring to see a repetition of the publication of the ill-fated National Plan?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that that was Mr. Campbell Adamson's view. It is not a matter which he has put to us, but should the matter be raised

I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Jay: Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that he is no more prepared to change his mind about what he calls political issues in discussion with the TUC than he was last year?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member cannot have listened to what I said. The other accusation that is made by Labour Members is that by having discussions with the TUC and CBI and in reaching agreements we were forming a so-called corporate State to overrule Parliament. I have specifically safeguarded Parliament's position in all the talks we have had by saying that legislation has been passed by Parliament. We are prepared to consider the economic consequences on workers and employers of what is done. Indeed, we have gone further because we have asked for the fullest consultation before any future legislation is passed, such as the codes under the statutory policy.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Although we now understand that the Prime Minister has made the position clear by saying that he will listen with an open mind, does he mean by the use of the words he used a moment or two ago that he will only consider the consequences of his legislation, or does he mean—and did the Lord President mean—that on the question of the repeal or standstill of the housing legislation he is prepared not only to listen to what is said on that matter but to act upon it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not prepared to repeal the Housing Finance Act, because there is a great body of trade union opinion which believes that it is the right policy to help those who need it and that those who are the higher paid workers can fully afford to pay a fair rent. It was a policy which the Labour Government followed, and when the trade unions say that they wish to help the lower paid I believe them to be in earnest. The way to do it is to help the lower paid to pay their rents and to see that this is done by rent rebates. Those who are getting high wages in our economy can well afford to pay the rent.

BILLS PRESENTED

BANGLADESH

Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home, supported by Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Walker, Lord Balniel, Mr. David Lane, and Mr. Anthony Kershaw presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the establishment of Bangladesh as an independent Republic within the Commonwealth: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION

Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. David Howell, Mr. van Straubenzee, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Peter Mills presented a Bill to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March].
That the Draft Double Taxation Relief (Corporation Tax) (Republic of Ireland) Order 1973 be referred to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question agreed to.

EMPLOYED PERSONS (SAFETY) BILL

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further the making in factories and elsewhere of arrangements for persons representing employees to participate in promoting the safety of employees; and for connected purposes
The Bill is practically unaltered from that which on three previous occasions has been given an unopposed Second Reading. On the first occasion it was put before the House as Part II of the Labour Government's Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill on 2nd March 1970. Unfortunately, the General Election intervened before it could complete all its parliamentary stages. The other two occasions occurred on 23rd April 1971 and on 4th February 1972 respectively. On the latter occasion it was slightly amended in Committee.
The Bill is a brief, modest and I believe a relatively uncontroversial measure. The objects of the Bill are to encourage employers and employees to become more safety conscious and thus reduce the number of fatal accidents and serious injuries in our British industries. It seeks to do this by encouraging trade union representatives to become more involved in the promotion of safety measures and the improvement of working conditions.
To achieve improved safety standards the Bill in the first place makes provision for factories with 10 or more employees to have safety representatives nominated by recognised trade unions selected from among the employees of the factories.
Secondly, if there are more than 100 employees at a factory, the safety representatives, if they so wish, can constitute a joint safety committee to be composed in part of the safety representatives and in part of the management representatives. The functions of safety representatives shall be to promote co-operation in achieving and maintaining safe working conditions in the factory between the management and the persons employed by the employers to work in the factory. In addition, the safety representatives from time to time can carry out inspections in the factory in the interests of the safety of the persons so employed.
These inspections are to be carried out by not more than two safety representatives and the employer shall not be required to give permission if that part of the factory has been inspected within the past three months, unless the inspection is the result of a notifiable accident. A person shall not be appointed as a safety representative unless he has been in the industry for five years and has worked for the employer in that factory for two years.
The Bill seeks to convince employees that they, as well as management, have a responsibility in improving and carrying out the safety measures at the factory; that it is essential for the better running of the factory for the employees to be more and more interested in the safety conditions; that it is their lives, their welfare and their health which are at stake if they do not play their part in improving the safety conditions of the factory.
Having worked in the mines for over three decades I am very much surprised that a modest Bill such as the one I am asking leave of the House to introduce was not put on the statute book many years ago. I dread to think what the pits would be like if we did not have the present Acts governing safety in them. I am informed that the concepts contained in the Bill are in operation in Sweden. There is sufficient evidence in that country to convince us that similar measures to those contained in this Bill have improved tremendously safety performances in their factories.
During the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment was not too enthusiastic about the Bill because the Government were awaiting the report of Lord Roben's Committee.
That report was published last July and we are still waiting for the Govern-

ment to take action. I am fully aware that the report implied that there should be safety regulations and non-statutory codes of practice. On page 20 the report says:
We recommend, therefore, that there should be a statutory duty on every employer to consult with his employees or their representatives at the work place on measures for promoting safety and health at work.
It is not the good employer who requires to be compelled by legislation to bring in safety measures. It is the employer who is indifferent to the health and welfare of his employees. It is essential that legislation is introduced to bring about a minimum standard of safety in our factories. For many years we have experienced paltry measures. In many instances they have failed. There are far too many deaths and serious accidents in our factories and legislation is urgently required.
This is a modest Bill and the cost would be so small as to be unnoticed. However, the results could be of great benefit to employees and to industry as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Reg Prentice, Mr. Harold Walker, Mr. Roy Hattersley, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. James Tinn, Mr. David Weitzman, Mr. John Golding and Mr. Michael Cocks.

EMPLOYED PERSONS (SAFETY)

Bill to further the making in factories and elsewhere of arrangements for persons representing employees to participate in promoting the safety of employees; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — ROLLS-ROYCE

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East): I beg to move,
That this House severely censures the Government for its gross mishandling of its dealings with Rolls-Royce since the bankruptcy of the Company in 1971; and demands the acquition at a fair valuation under the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act 1971 of all the assets of the company from the Receiver so that it can continue to make its full contribution to the national economy from within the public sector, and thus safeguard the jobs of those workers whose skills and dedication are its only real assets.
In moving the motion I have 10 specific charges of malpractice and maladministration to make against the Government for their handling of Rolls-Royce over the last two years, each of which will require a full and complete answer from the Secretary of State. I have also drafted and listed a number of important questions which require to be dealt with authoritatively in the debate.
Before I come to those, let me tell the House what the debate is not about. It is not about a threat of confiscation of private property—[Interruption.]—made by me or any other member of the Labour Party. It is not about some change of policy by the Labour Party on the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce. It is not an academic or a legal argument about the status of Rolls-Royce Motors. Let me deal with these issues first. The Labour Party, as the Conservatives very well know, has never advocated or threatened confiscation.

Mr. Robert Adley: What about Caledonian?

Mr. Benn: However, what we will not have is the selling off of profitable parts of the public assets in such a way as to allow private profit to be made at the expense of the taxpayer. As for the profitable air routes handed over to British Caledonian, we shall take them back without any compensation, for they belonged and they still belong to the State

airlines from which they were confiscated by the Government without any recompense to public funds.
In our motion we demand a fair valuation for Rolls-Royce Motors and if it falls to us later to see that valuation made we shall see, as I made clear in my statement, that there will be no quick or easy profits when Rolls-Royce Motors is brought into the public sector. No one should be surprised that the Opposition intend the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce Motors. We moved an amendment to the Bill in 1971 as the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South (Sir F. Corfield) will remember very well. We voted on it and that has been on the record ever since for everyone to sec.
The hysterical reaction to my statement, stirred up by the City and by Ministers, was intended to obscure what is happening, namely the sale of valuable public assets simply to make a profit for the City and others.

Mr. Adley: I am intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's classification of Rolls-Royce Motors as presumably one of the commanding heights of the British economy—

Mr. Benn: Get on with it.

Mr. Adley: Presumably therefore the right hon. Gentleman will be seeking to nationalise British Leyland, Ford and General Motors as well.

Mr. Benn: I had supposed, foolishly for a moment, that the hon. Member would make a serious intervention. I should know him well enough to realise that it would be near impossible for him to do that.
An attempt was made last week to confuse the issue by suggesting that Rolls-Royce Motors had never been nationalised, but that was not and is not the issue. Rolls-Royce is a public asset because the public has paid for Rolls-Royce over and over again in the last 10 years. The company lived off defence contracts for years and when Concorde was launched it moved over to a cost-plus basis on the civil side, too. Perhaps I may give the figures to the House.
Before Concorde was launched—and the figures were published yesterday by


the Minister—from 1960–61 through to 1962–63 Rolls-Royce was actually paying more money to the Government in repayment of levies than it was receiving from the Government. It paid nearly £1 million in 1960–61, £219,000 in 1961–62 and £700,000 in 1962–63. However, with Concorde, all that changed. I invite the House to consider the figures from 1963– 64 to 1972–73 of the amount of Government money going in. I have rounded the figures off. For those 10 years they are £1 million; £2 million; £10 million; £15 million; £20 million; £24 million; £19 million; £20 million; £24 million and £19 million. The total was over £158 million, and all that went into Rolls-Royce as a result of the Concorde contract. If the shareholders at Rolls-Royce had had any of their money at risk in the Olympus as they had in the RB211, Rolls-Royce would have bankrupted in 1964.
Of course, it was not only money for Concorde that was going into Rolls-Royce. I have quoted the £158 million for Concorde, but there was also £13 million for Concorde production, £9 million for other research, launching aid over the 10 years of £172 million—and a total of public money going into Rolls-Royce of £354 million. And this was not for purchase of aircraft on Government account over that 10-year period—

Mr. Norman Lamont(Kingston-upon-Thames): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: No, the hon. Member will just have to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley)—[An HON. MEMBER: "Arrogant."] If the hon. Gentleman has a serious question I will give way— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only a short debate and a considerable number of hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be heard reasonably silently.

Mr. Lamont: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. Is he suggesting that any company that receives public money is therefore apt to be regarded as being a public asset? Will that in future apply

to British Leyland, GEC, and all the other companies that received aid from him when he was a Minister?

Mr. Benn: The argument about public funds is a very powerful argument. When a company lives entirely on Government money, whatever else one calls it, one cannot call it private enterprise or private assets. The argument will become a little stronger when I read the next figures published by the Ministry of Defence yesterday.
In the last two years, according to the Ministry of Defence figures, £448 million has gone into Rolls-Royce under the Government account. It is not clear to me, because the Minister said that he could not answer this question in the time available, whether there is any overlap between the £354 million over 10 years and the £448 million over two years, but there is no question that Rolls Royce has been bought by the British taxpayer over and over again.
If one adds the cancellation charges for aircraft in the fifties of £11 million, the IRC loan of £10 million, the Government purchase of patents amounting to £20 million, there is no question but that Rolls-Royce is a public asset and has to be looked at as such. It had a golden crutch given it with Concorde, a golden stretcher with the RB211, and now the tomb is to be robbed by permission of Her Majesty's Government.
Rolls-Royce Motors benefited, like every other division of the company, from those massive injections of public money—the engineering, the management, the world-wide organisation. The goodwill alone would have been worth all the profits attributed to the sale of cars, not to mention the lucrative subcontracting that the motor division did and still does for the aero-engine side.

Mr. Peter Rost: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have a special interest in the worker shareholders, particularly at Derby. Is he suggesting that, because of his argument, there should be no entitlement to any compensation whatsoever by the worker shareholders of Rolls-Royce? If so, why did he not announce this when he was in office?

Mr. Benn: I shall be dealing with the worker shareholders very fully, having


read every speech that the hon. Member has made on this subject since the collapse of Rolls-Royce.
On 27th March 1968, when Sir Denning Pearson finalised the launching aid agreement of £47 million for the RB211, he knew that it was a fixed Government investment and that the whole extra risk was to be carried by his own shareholders, and Rolls-Royce in 1968 pledged all their assets to the RB211 to meet the Government help that was given.
Now let me formulate the charges that we are levelling against the Government for the handling of their relations with Rolls-Royce.
The first charge is that the Government have deceived Parliament and the public by seeking to deny that Rolls-Royce is a public asset. Second, the Government are actively encouraging the sale of a profitable part of these public assets. That is what the flotation of the shares in the motor company is all about.
Third, the Government themselves are responsible for the bankruptcy of Rolls, which they brought about deliberately and needlessly in 1971—[Laughter.] If the hon. Member wants to know the reason for the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce, he should look at the statement made by the Rolls board on 4th February, which said,
… the costs of launching the engine will exceed by a wide margin the earlier estimates on which the company sought additional facilities of £60 million last November. None of this money has been paid; its availability from the Government and Banks was made conditional on a satisfactory report. …
The Government withheld the money for the RB211 in February 1971 as a calculated political decision to ram home the fact that they were serious about their lame duck policy and to kill off the RB211 in order to make possible the merger of a truncated Rolls-Royce with a European aero-engine company. Everyone who has followed the story knows that to be true.
After all, the Prime Minister himself made a joyful speech about Rolls-Royce which was quoted in The Times on 8th February:
 It is of the greatest importance that this lesson should be learned and acted on by us all: it is that for too long much of our apparent prosperity has been based on illusions.

We cannot expect to build a sure prosperity until we rid ourselves of these illusions.
The Prime Minister carried through the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce and the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South, however reluctantly, made in the House two speeches in which certain references could only be interpreted as an attack upon the RB211 engine. He said:
 The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party equated the name with engineering excellence and both he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) held the preservation of the RB211 to be essential to our engineering and commercial credibility. The point was made, too, that this project was thought to be a last chance for Britain to remain in the aero-engine league.
He said:
 I believe both those propositions to be questionable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said later:
Certainly, in Europe, the RB2ll was coming to be regarded not as a great advantage to Rolls-Royce but as a project that was gradually sapping both its resources and its energy.
He went on:
 I am replying to the idea that there is an enormous potential market for this engine. I do not believe that there is now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1971; Vol. 811, c. 98 100.]
The Prime Minister and the then Minister for Aviation Supply used the Rolls-Royce crisis as a chance to develop, first, their attack on so-called lame ducks, and. second, their European policy.

Sir Frederick Corfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think, looking back over what is now nearly 2½ years, that his estimate was more accurate than mine? If so, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Second, does he really think that, at that time, when there was no certainty at all that the RB211 could be carried on, it would have been sensible for any Minister—I do not know whether he would have done so; he might have done—to say to the workers in Rolls-Royce, "You have no hope unless this project, which we cannot guarantee, goes on, and therefore you are starting on a new operation with no future at all."? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows what I proposed at the


time, because I have the record here— that Rolls-Royce should have been acquired by the Government under the Industrial Expansion Act, in which case, every worker shareholder would have been safeguarded, there would have been —[Interruption.] When I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, why not use the Industrial Expansion Act and acquire it, he said that I was "probably right", that it could be done.
Had the Government acquired Rolls-Royce in that way, there would have been none of the loss of faith, none of the tarnishing of the engineering reputation of Rolls-Royce and the problems of the worker shareholders or creditors would never have arisen in that form—[Interruption.] This is what this debate is about —that if the Government are to come out of this with credit, they have to explain, looking back over the two years, why they bankrupted this company when, in the end, they had to pick up the whole cheque and guarantee the RB211 without limit up to the first 555 engines.

Mr. Dan Jones: I think this is important, Mr. Speaker, or I would not intervene. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the saving of the RB211 was achieved by a member of the United States Congress, not by the Government?

Mr. Benn: Of course the hon. Member is right, but when that Congressman or senator came in at the last minute the Government were allowed to underwrite every engine up to 555 of an engine that had been attacked by the Minister and a company that had been bankrupted by the Government.
The fourth charge—and this is a grave charge, too—is that the Government have concealed from Parliament and the public their relations with the receiver. On many occasions Ministers have shielded behind the receiver and have declined to answer questions. The only firm evidence I have about the Government's relations with the receiver came from a correspondent who attended a lecture given by the receiver at the British Institute of Management in Birmingham on 18th January 1972 when he spoke on the functions of the receivership. My correspondent said:
When answering a question relating to the actual time at which a receivership comes to an end, Mr. Nicholson said that there was a school of thought which believed that when

the debenture holders had been settled the receivership ends. However he did not subscribe to this view and had recently sought two separate legal opinions on the matter. Both had said that the receivership ends when, and not before, the receiver himself is satisfied that he fulfilled the job he was assigned to. And this was not necessarily at the time that the debenture holders had been settled. He then remarked that "—
this is Mr. Nicholson—
' this point was important where there was political pressure on the receiver'.
I wrote to the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South immediately I received that letter and asked how he saw the function of the receiver. He replied on 11th February last year:
The receiver is a party to the heads of agreement for the sale of the aero-engine division of Rolls-Royce Ltd. to Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and can therefore be expected to remain in office at least until the price payable for those assets has been agreed. I am not able to say when that will be.
Did Ministers put pressure on the receiver to sell off Rolls-Royce Motors? Of course they did, and I will tell the House how they did it. They did it by making it absolutely clear, as they did to the receiver about Carbon Fibres, that they were not prepared to buy it. Those were the political pressures. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course they were. They bankrupt the company. There is a receiver there. There is legislation that allows them to buy up the company and its subsidiaries. They then say that they will not use the legislation Parliament has given them and they force Rolls-Royce Motors on to the public market. That is what happened, and the Government now have to explain why they declined to use the Act that they asked Parliament to give them, which would have brought Rolls-Royce Motors into the public sector.
The fifth charge is that the Government have also allowed the Rolls-Royce suppliers to suffer. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) asked a question about this in which he pointed out that there were suppliers of Rolls-Royce who supplied before the collapse and whose enginers were later supplied to the Government for use. And when the Minister who is to reply to this debate answered, he said:
That is a matter for Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the Receiver of Rolls-Royce Ltd. … The Government are not a direct party to it." [OFFICIAL REPORT 13th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 13–14.]


Now I come to the sixth charge. The Government have betrayed the Rolls-Royce workers, and the gravest charge of all is that the Government have deliberately abandoned the Rolls-Royce workers who had shares in the old company. There were about 9,500 of them and the total value of their shares was, I believe, under £2 million. These represented small investments, often made for pension purposes, by men who had devoted a lifetime of service to the company. Under the terms of workers' shares the company promised to buy them back at any time. But from November 1970— three months before the company collapsed—it refused to honour that pledge. Ordinary shareholders were able to sell in the critical three months before the collapse. Worker shareholders were not. They were locked in to the Rolls-Royce Company, and they have lost everything.
I have had a number of very tragic letters, as have other hon. Members, about this. One was from a widow who wrote to me when she knew this debate was to take place saying that her late husband died after being 50 years with the company and left her with 1,500 Rolls-Royce ordinary shares worth £3,500 and also some workers' shares, which are lost. Another letter was from a foreman who retired last summer, who told me a similar story.
Ministers have expressed regret and shed crocodile tears, but compare that with the way in which the top management has been treated. When Hugh Conway left the board of Rolls-Royce 18 months ago he was given £35,000, and he could have been employed by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., for a period of only about six months. It can be seen from the prospectus which the Rolls-Royce Motor Company has now put out that they have arranged that the 10 directors of the new company, many of whom are part-time, will receive £79,000 a year. That is just under £10,000 per person.
Twelve thousand Rolls-Royce workers were sacked after the liquidation, and it is typical of the double standard the Government have adopted throughout this that the present Secretary of State should have intervened personally on the Rolls-Royce question only when investors' interests were affected. That was the first statement he made on the subject. The

workers in Rolls-Royce have no legal rights in the matter. They have not been consulted about the sale of Rolls-Royce Motors. When the flotation is completed and the shares change hands, Rolls-Royce Motors can be sold over their heads again and again and Ministers will get up and say that it is nothing to do with them, although they forced the company on to the market.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is shedding such crocodile tears for the workers of Rolls-Royce when he admits that in June 1969 he wrote to Upper Clyde and told them to slim their labour force by several thousand men or there would not be one further penny of money from the Government to support them?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is broadening the debate a bit. I never said that the Government would decline to give further money to Upper Clyde and he knows that very well.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman would sit down it would be a great help to the debate in all sorts of ways.
The next charge I make against the Government is that they have allowed a flotation of the company at a cost of £2 million in City fees, which is more than the workers' shareholdings were worth. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the City Press on 10th May on this he will find that Rothschilds, the underwriters, the bankers, the accountants, and the lawyers are getting £2 million for floating this company, which is exactly what the workers' shareholders have lost. I would go further and say that the Government have been party to a deception of the small investor by the flotation of this company at values which The Times, the Financial Times and others warned was above the real market price.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Can we get this point clear? In view of all the right hon. Gentleman has said and since his sympathy with the workers is perfectly acceptable and understandable, how does he square that with his philosophical programme and his suggestion for his own party that they should acquire similar assets to these without any compensation in the future in respect of any enterprise whatsoever?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman did not hear the beginning of the debate because he came in late. I dealt with his point at the beginning and he can read my reply in HANSARD.
I come to the ninth charge, which is that the Government are allowing Rolls-Royce Motors to make their profit out of sub-contracting to the nationalised Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. It is quite clear from the prospectus that they are selling Rolls-Royce Motors on the basis of at least £6 million annual turnover—and with whom? With Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. One of the managers of Rolls-Royce, Crewe, who has access to the figures, tells me that next year and the year after and in 1975 in one component alone there will be sales of £1 million to Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. by the denationalised Rolls-Royce Motors.
Thus the taxpayer is being milked through a nationalised company living on public money and the profit will end up in a phoney private enterprise firm called Rolls-Royce Motors. It is a fraud on the public Exchequer that such an arrangement should be permitted. As the House may know, even the factory at Crewe is owned by the Ministry of Defence, which is desperately trying to sell it.
I come, then, to the final charge. It is that the Government are planning to sell off the aero engine business—Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, the nationalised company—as soon as they can. This is what the issue is about. The Minister of Aviation Supply made this clear twice on 11th February when he said:
… it is not the Government's intention that Rolls-Royce should remain indefinitely in Government ownership…
Later he said:
It would be the Government's intention to bring in the maximum private participation as soon as is practicable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February 1971; Vol. 811, c. 822 and 946.]
If the Government get away with the sale of Rolls-Royce Motors the way will be clear for them to move to the next stage of the operation and to sell off the central asset which the nation has bought over the years.
The Secretary of State has four main questions to answer. First, on what principle of public policy is it proper to sell public assets for private profit? Second, did the Government put pressure on the

receiver in such a way as to force him, as I believe to be the case, to sell off Rolls-Royce Motors? Third, what justification can there be for cheating the worker shareholders of £2 million and paying the City the same amount to float the company off when, if the company had been bought by the Government, the creditors would have got exactly the same amount of money but, instead of the City getting its £2 million, the worker shareholders would have got their £2 million? Fourth, do the Government still intend to sell off the nationalised aero engine business and, if so, when?
The issues raised by this story are very much wider than can be contained within the case of Rolls-Royce. The electoral strength of members of the Conservative Party has always depended upon their pretence that they are the friends of working people, the best custodians of the public purse and the real patriots in defending the national interest. They have spent millions of pounds on political propaganda to try to get this message across and to conceal the truth, which is the exact opposite.
The story of Rolls-Royce has stripped away that deception and revealed the Conservative Party, this Government and their Ministers as men ready to rob the taxpayer, to sacrifice the workers and to betray the national interest to please the rich and powerful men with whom they are allied.
The scandal of Rolls-Royce—

Mr. Tom King: Since it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has completed his main points, it has also become clear that he has shifted his ground from the main accusation which he made in his statement. His original charge was that there was a lack of consultation with the people concerned and that the employees were treated like cattle. Can the right hon. Gentleman now give us a better answer than that which he gave to me about the measures of consultation that he had taken, about whether he denies the charge made by the chairman of the works council that he should have kept his mouth shut, and about whether he sticks by the partial answer which he gave that because there was so much national money in the company the workers had no right to be consulted.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman discussed these matters with me on Thames Television. He cannot try to remedy the thrashing which he got then by making the points again in this debate. He knows perfectly well that the Rolls-Royce workers, now that they are sold off, can be sold again and again with no consultation. He also knows that the Rolls-Royce workers themselves, by every possible demonstration of opinion that can be gathered, wish to be with the public sector and that there is no question about that.
The scandal of Rolls-Royce for which the Government are entirely responsible will be seen by the public alongside Lonrho, Vehicle and General, North Sea oil and other great business scandals which are making the public aware of the abuse of business power.
It is not a few long-haired students at the London School of Economics who ultimately will bring down this Government. It is the middle-aged manager, like the one who sent me details of his dealings with the main company, fearing the sack when the asset stripper takes over. It is the quiet hospital ancillary worker watching on television and hearing that the right hon. Member for Streat-ham (Mr. Sandys) voted for the Counter-Inflation Bill to keep down her wages. It is the skilled engineering draughtsman who reads the Financial Times and realises what is going on. It is people such as that who will undermine the position of this Government. These people and their families are slowly awakening to what is happening at Rolls-Royce, at Lonrho, at Roche, and at Hill Samuel-Slater Walker, whose merger involving £1,500 million has not yet been referred to the Monopolies Commission.
Those of us who point this out expect abuse and will get abuse. But at bottom this is not a problem of financing companies of even of management or of high technology. It is not even a problem of high political ideology. It is a moral problem about how the community treats those who create our national wealth, how that wealth is divided and whether those with power are to be held accountable for the use that they make of it.
I warn the Prime Minister that when the British people get to learn the full truth about all the shabby dealings of his

shabby Government, he and his Ministers will be swept from office for a generation.

4.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Walker): It was interesting to try to discover which right hon. Member was speaking. Certainly it was not the right hon. Member who, for example, formerly had direct responsibility for Rolls-Royce. Presumably it was not the right hon. Member who in the three years during which he was the Minister responsible poured £114 million into Rolls-Royce and did not at any stage come to the conclusion that this industry should be brought into public control or nationalisation. In June 1970, neither locally in Bristol, where Rolls-Royce is a major concern, nor nationally did the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues announce that they had concluded that so much money had been poured into Rolls-Royce by the Gentlemen in Whitehall that the time had come to bring it into public ownership. There was a complete silence about any such possibility.
If any Minister in any British Government is responsible for the difficulties of Rolls-Royce it is the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), as well as he knows. We all remember those great statements when the RB211 contract was landed. We remember, too, how within a matter of a few months the costs escalated. The right hon. Gentleman put in the IRC to look at it, and it decided that another £20 million of loans was necessary. Then, fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, he went out of office and left us with a bad contract, badly negotiated, to which he personally had given enormous financial support.

Mr. Benn: I expected this line of argument to come. If the contract was bad and if the terms were bad, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), in November 1970 offered to put in another £42 million on the same terms and on the same contract and got it through this House?

Mr. Walker: Certainly, but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon.


Friend the member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies) then arranged for a thorough and deep investigation to take place which revealed that there was a desperate and urgent necessity to renegotiate the contract. It was the right hon. Gentleman who made the first initial judgment on that. That proved, like most of the right hon. Gentleman's judgments, absolutely wrong.
Then it was a different right hon. Gentleman we heard, compared with only a few years ago when he was the Minister responsible. We heard yet a different right hon. Gentleman today from the one we heard last week. This is a quite remarkable circumstance because he says that at no stage has the Labour Party been in favour of nationalisation or renationalisation on the basis of confiscation. To compare that with the words he issued last week would be an interesting matter for the House to look at in a few minutes' time.
The remarkable thing about this debate is that it is connected only with the activities of the right hon. Gentleman last week. The motion refers to the changes which have taken place since the bankruptcy in 1971. Of course, the basic reason why the Government have taken over control of Rolls-Royce since 1971 is no different from that which was debated then. The assets which have been in the hands of the Receiver are no different from they were then. There is no difference in the performance of the company, other than improvement. In Rolls-Royce (1971) productivity has substantially improved. The export orders for Rolls-Royce (1971) are at an all-time high. They are at the moment trying to conquer new world markets with different engines.
As far as Rolls-Royce Motors is concerned, the only difference that has taken place in its activities is that its exports have gone up. Its production has gone up. There is no doubt at all that it is better managed than it was previously under its separate identity.
Just let us trace the really remarkable irresponsibility. The right hon. Gentleman talked in his speech about the misuse of power. Just look at the right hon. Gentleman's remarkable irresponsibility. In June 1972 it was announced that Rothschild had been appointed to

organise the official flotation of this company. At that stage neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Labour Party made any comments. There was no statement of any description. On 21st March 1973 a prospectus was issued. It was announced that an attempt was to be made to see whether a tender was possible. or whether a public flotation should take place. Once again the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party were absolutely silent on this topic. On 26th March 1973 the right hon. Gentleman was actually involved in Question Time when this topic came up. He asked one of the Under-Secretaries of State from my Department,
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is not satisfactory? Rolls-Royce was acquired by the Government two years ago. The Government are the sole shareholders of Rolls-Royce, including the motor company, and it is for the Government to make it absolutely clear that the company should be retained in British ownership.
He was given the reply,
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The ownership of Rolls-Royce Motors is vested in the Receiver."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1973; Vol. 929, c. 899.]
That was the end of what took place in this House. No statement or comment was made afterwards by the right hon. Gentleman, nothing about renationalising at this stage. Still his silence continued.
Then on 29th April he at last made a comment. His comment was about whether it should be in British ownership or not. There was nothing about re-nationalisation or nationalisation.
On 3rd May public flotation was announced. Employees in Rolls-Royce were informed that they could apply for shares if they wished. There was considerable publicity. Again there was not a word from the right hon. Gentleman— no comment from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Benn: What does the right hon. Gentleman make of the statement reported in the Financial Times on 30th April?

Mr. Walker: I have the statement of 29th April, but certainly on 30th April there was no statement in the Financial Times saying that he was going to confiscate the company's assets.
The first statement came from the right hon. Gentleman after the underwriting of


the issue had been completed, when institutions—including pension funds and others, no doubt—had underwritten this issue. It came on the evening of 7th May, judged by the right hon. Gentleman as the moment it could do most damage, when it could cause the most difficulty for the company. That was the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, and of course he succeeded.
Then we come to the actual statement he made. This is the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who, a few moments ago, told the House that the Labour Party would never nationalise or re-nationalise anything without paying compensation.

Mr. Benn: Confiscation.

Mr. Walker: I will give the words the right hon. Gentleman used. This is on the night of the issue, never having commented before.
Those who are thinking of acquiring shares in Rolls-Royce Motors should take serious notice of the official policy of the Labour Party calling on the next Labour Government to renationalise without compensation public assets which are sold off by the present Government.
That statement was made by the same right hon. Gentleman the House has just heard say that this had never been Labour Party policy.
There then took place a great deal of anguish, not just on this side of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members on the other side of the House were annoyed, furious, and felt it was doing their party a great deal of harm. I am pleased to say that they were right.
That night we saw the Labour Party start to take some action to remedy the position. At about 9.30 that evening one realised that the Leader of the Opposition had started to move in on this deteriorating situation. The following words were issued on the tape:
Mr. Wilson's intention after tomorrow's Shadow Cabinet
—he obviously has great confidence in his ability to get what he likes with his Shadow Cabinet—
will be to emerge with a formula which— without discrediting Mr. Benn—will soften the 'confiscatory' tone of his remarks.
We were all delighted that the Leader of the Opposition succeeded. After the

Shadow Cabinet, we had another remarkable statement, but this time from the Leader of the Opposition. It started with encouraging words. It said:
It is not the policy of the Labour Party that shareholders in the automobile sector of Rolls-Royce should be dispossessed of their shares without compensation.
"Hoorah", we said, "everything has been reversed." "But no", said the Leader of the Opposition, "it has not been reversed"—because he went on with this remarkable statement:
This was clear from the operative paragraph of Mr. Wedgwood Benn's statement.
This creates an interesting new situation in British politics. A member of the Shadow Cabinet issues a statement saying quite clearly that shareholders should be dispossessed of their shares without compensation. We are told the next day by the Leader of the Opposition that this was not the operative paragraph of the statement. Which was the operative paragraph? The middle paragraph is just explanatory on policy. The final paragraph says:
Let me issue a solemn warning so that there can be no possibility of any mistake on the part of those who think they are going to make quick and easy profits out of public assets on this deal.
Was that the operative paragraph? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us which was the operative paragraph.

Mr. Bean: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the operative paragraph was the reference at the end of the statement. The first paragraph referred to the party conference and the TUC decisions, which are absolutely clear as a warning that there will be no compensation which will permit quick and easy profits. The right hon. Gentleman can have his fun, but the Labour Government will see that there are no profits made out of public assets.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman might consider this irresponsibility as fun, but on the night of the public flotation of Rolls-Royce Motors he issued a three-paragraph statement, the first paragraph of which the right hon. Gentleman claims has nothing to do with the Rolls-Royce Motors issue at all, was just put in as an interesting aside, but which links completely with the other two paragraphs. If the right hon. Gentleman is adhering to the fact that when he made


that statement he did not wish to give an impression that he was going to take over Rolls-Royce without compensation, all I can say is that he will have great difficulty in persuading anybody about his statements of any nature again. He knows full well that this was his attitude, and undoubtedly if he had had his way with the Shadow Cabinet it is what he would have been proclaiming at this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Benn: The motion on the order paper we are debating today, calling for the acquisition of Rolls-Royce Motors at a fair valuation, was drafted by me, submitted to the Shadow Cabinet and accepted by the Shadow Cabinet. It is a view that I put to the Shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to hear that after all the criticism.
Apparently, in the future we must find out whether in any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a clause is operative, non-operative, or explanatory. Perhaps in future he will have green and red paragraphs so that we may distinguish which is which.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman talks about requiring to know which paragraphs of documents are operative and which are not. Will he be kind enough to take up the Conservative Party manifesto for the election which stated that Government grants will be abolished, that there will be no statutory prices and incomes policy, and that there will be no interference with the steel industry, and will he also take up the Prime Minister's statement of 16th June which talked about abolishing prices "at a stroke", and tell us whether those statements are operative?

Mr. Walker: As we are told that the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the drafting of that famous phrase by the Leader of the Opposition, "This is not a promise lightly given, but a pledge," I should have thought that he was rather sensitive on these topics.
Let us turn to the important theme of workers' consultation. It would be interesting to know how many of the various mergers in British industry carried out under the IRC, when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, were done

purely because the workers on both sides agreed to them. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for some of the biggest rationalisations and mergers in British industry. As far as I know, on no occasion did he call in the workers' representatives on both sides and say, "We are contemplating merging these two companies. What do you think of it?"
Regarding workers' consultation on this issue, I think that both the right hon. Gentleman and the Government could have heard the workers' views before he issued his statement. They made their views on this issue clear before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. For example, Mr. Keith Standing, the Executive Secretary of the Association of Professional Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, issued a statement which simply says:
We are delighted. Having discussed jobs safeguard for the employees with the Official Receiver, we welcome the decision to float the company publicly.
That was the staff side.
We then have the views of the AUEW. Mr. Carless, the district secretary of the engineering section of the AUEW, with 2,400 members in the factory, said:
This is what we wanted. It means that Rolls Royce Motors will remain under the same management and improve—two most important points.
Mr. Leslie Gallimore, the chairman of the factory works committee, said:
I am very satisfied with the outcome. I am sure the employees of that factory will be of the same frame of mind. The management and workers have co-operated to ensure that this company is viable. We are quite qualified to run this business.
So the views of the workers were known, as indeed were their views after the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, perhaps best summarised by the chairman of the shop stewards at the Crewe plant who, perhaps in a slightly undignified manner, said:
Mr. Wedgwood Benn would have done better to have kept his mouth shut. His remarks have been highly embarrassing and ill-timed to say the least.
If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in workers' consultation, I hope that he will do it more thoroughly in future.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of last week the executive of my trade


union, the engineering and supervisory staff of the engineers, passed a unanimous resolution wholeheartedly endorsing what my right hon. Friend said last week? Is he further aware that I was in the Crewe and Shrewsbury area two weeks ago when the workers were very much in favour of nationalising Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Walker: It is interesting that a number of people have rallied to the right hon. Gentleman's first statement, but not to his second. I do not know whether the shop stewards were in favour of what he said earlier or later in the week. If they were in favour of what he said earlier rather than later in the week, they have some powerful allies. Mr. Jack Jones has said that he supports what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the week about no compensation. Mr. Clive Jenkins has said that he is in favour of nationalising with no compensation. Tribune, that little group, has said that it thought the right hon. Gentleman was right earlier in the week. That group must be disappointed in him by now. We therefore have an interesting situation.
As I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is to wind up the debate as well—I do not blame anybody for not wanting that job—perhaps he can tell us, if Mr. Jack Jones, Mr. Clive Jenkins and the Tribune group succeed at the coming Labour Party conference with what the right hon. Gentleman was saying earlier in the week, whether the democratic position and control of the Labour Party on this policy is likely to be changed? He certainly has some powerful allies in his former position, but plenty of enemies, too. There is no doubt, reading the local papers at Crewe and Shrewsbury, that the workers are strongly opposed.
There are other basic questions the answers to which the right hon. Gentleman, in pursuing this policy, must give the House. For example, one company was sold by the receiver to Shell. Does it mean that that company will be taken back and nationalised? Is that to come back into public ownership? Are the taxpayers to pay Shell a sum of money for that company?
A 20 per cent. share in BAC was sold to Vickers and GEC. As a result of the policy propounded by the right hon. Gentleman, is that to be bought back? Is the taxpayer to pay for that?
Is Rolls-Royce Motors to be bought back, nationalised, and put back under the old aircraft company? Not many people at Crewe and Shrewsbury would want that. The workers in both factories are delighted to be on their own and not part of a major aircraft group. Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to bring them back to that? There will be no Rolls-Royce aircraft company because, if the right hon. Gentleman gets back into power, as he has openly declared, he will nationalise the whole of the aviation industry. Therefore, presumably Rolls-Royce Motors will be a small adjunct to a massive nationalised air industry.
What of the future of Rolls-Royce under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals? I presume from what he has recently said on the redistribution of wealth that a Labour Government will eliminate the domestic demand for the product. I should think that, regarding our overseas prospects, there would be slightly less clamour for a British nationalised car being sold abroad than in the past, as far as Rolls-Royce is concerned.
We now understand that compensation is to be paid. This means that the Labour Party has taken a decision about a company which we know currently to be well managed, a company for which the shop stewards and works committees are happy about having a public issue and being owned in that way. For purely doctrinaire reasons—the one success that the right hon. Gentleman had in the Shadow Cabinet—if a Labour Government comes in, a cheque for £38 million, or more if the company improves its position, will be paid out by the British taxpayer to take it, against the wishes of its management and workers, into nationalisation.
Even more terrifying are the principles underlying the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has outlined a series of new principles upon which nationalisation is to be based. The first principle is the safeguarding of jobs—the interests of the workers. This comes out in the motion. I suppose the answer is that nationalisation results in the safeguarding of jobs, But that was not so when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Government. In the six years of the Labour Government there was less safeguarding of jobs in the nationalised industries than in any other sector. During


their term of office no fewer than 404,000 jobs were lost in the nationalised industries. That is hardly a party to persuade workers that with nationalisation their jobs are safeguarded.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Rolls-Royce should be nationalised because of the volume of Government purchases and aid. When one of my hon. Friends intervened to ask whether it meant that if there are enormous orders and research projects there is a threat of nationalisation, the right hon. Gentleman, in about eight sentences, said "Yes". That is the principle upon which he is now working. Any firms which have a great deal of defence contracts or which tender on a large basis for Government contracts and any firms which get massive injections of aid in the regions are on the potential list for nationalisation according to the right hon. Gentleman. All that I can say is—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen say, "They ought to be". Do hon. Members think that is in the interests of the British economy to dissuade British firms from tendering for major Government contracts because if they do they are liable to the threat of nationalisation? It is certainly not in the interests of the people of this country. No one would be more delighted by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon than the foreign suppliers at the potentialities that this opens up for them. Likewise, those firms which get massive injections in order to develop industries in the regions also come under this basic threat.
The next position is the whole question of power and size.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On the matter of the workers' feelings about being in a nationalised enterprise as opposed to a private enterprise and the record of the Labour Government in that respect, all intelligent workers realise that there has to be some change and that the pace of change is accelerating. But all of them in the trade union movement, without exception, feel far safer in respect of humane treatment in nationalised industries than they are ever able to feel at the hands of speculators such as Slater-Walker, bidding for the land assets, and so on, as in the case of Rockware and the Westland Aircraft Company.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman does not have much evidence that there is a great rush of people endeavouring to become employed by nationalised industries as opposed to the private sector industries. Recruitment has always been easier in the private sector than it has been in the nationalised sector.

Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman is now purporting to speak for workers, will he explain, as chairman of Slater-Walker until the last General Election, why there were workers in South Africa on starvation wages? Will he kindly reconcile what he has said with the practice of his business friends who, when there are not strong trade unions, are able to make profits at the expense of their workers?

Mr. Walker: I will. First, I was never the chairman of Slater-Walker. That is one inaccuracy. But besides that, perhaps I could ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was, when he was the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This is the answer. The right hon. Gentleman will not like it. Perhaps he could tell me why, in the year in which he was responsible for the steel industry, he did not inquire into the state of the workers under the poverty datum line employed by the nationalised British Steel Corporation's associate companies in South Africa? Is he in no way ashamed that daring the period when he was responsible for steel, a nationalised industry was doing the same thing as that of which he is now accusing Slater-Walker? The right hon. Gentleman can squirm. As he knows, the nationalised British steel industry remedied the situation disclosed by The Guardian as quickly as it could, and so did Slater-Walker. Let us not have this slur upon the private sector when an industry for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible did exactly the same thing.
The other basis of the nationalisation outlined today is that of power and size. The right hon. Gentleman has committed a Labour Government on this matter.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I hope so.

Mr. Walker: Unless this was a speech and the clause which I am reading was non-operative as opposed to operative. But on 1st May, when the right hon.


Gentleman was rallying the workers to strike against the Government's phase 2 policies, he laid down the Labour movement's programme. He spoke of
the expansion of investment by greatly extending public enterprise and the effective public supervision of the investment policy of large public corporations.
The right hon. Gentleman nods his head. This is operative, presumably, and the Shadow Cabinet have approved this. So this is now official policy—
the expansion of investment by greatly extending public enterprise and the effective public supervision of the investment policy of large public corporations.
This is a fairly frightening policy. Presumbly, for example, the announcements made yesterday by British Leyland would have been supervised by the right hon. Gentleman. This would have alarming consequences. The way in which he supervises, as described by himself, is a frightening process. In an earlier debate on Rolls-Royce, when he was eager to claim his rôle in landing that splendid RB211 order, he described to us how he did so. He said:
At 5.30 on Wednesday, 27th March, Rolls-Royce came to me and said that Lockheed had decided to go ahead with only two airline orders, and it required another £20 million, which it must have five hours later if it was not to wihdraw altogeher from the race.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say,
I have heard it said many times—I have heard it said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and seen it on television in "The Power Game" and "The Plane Makers"—that Governments arc very slow when it comes to major industrial decisions, that only business men can take big risks at critical moments.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
Because my memoirs are not appearing in the Sunday Times, perhaps I can be allowed to give them to the House. In fact, 5½ hours later—I noted the time in my diary—at four minutes past eleven that night I rang Rolls-Royce and authorised a guarantee not for £20 million but for £9 million to carry it over that four-week period.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
That is the reality of Government-industry relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 39–40.]
One can imagine yesterday the phone ringing and Lord Stokes being told, "Not £500 million but £300 million. That will cover you over the next two years."
The whole absurdity of the right hon. Gentleman's position is that at present Rolls-Royce (1971) has recovered from the position which he should have observed when he was responsible for it. Rolls-Royce Motors is successfully exporting, expanding, and providing good jobs for people. The private sector of British industry, which the right hon. Gentleman condemns and hates so much, is exporting more than ever before and expanding faster than ever, and providing better standards of living in this country than ever before. All that the Shadow Cabinet can do is to sit down for five hours, yesterday, to try to debate with the right hon. Gentleman the absurdities of his Left-wing policy.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I shall not attempt to follow the Secretary of State either in his selective quotations or in his rhetoric. It was entirely typical of him that he attempted at no stage to answer any one of the 10 points made to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn).
Those points may not matter very much to the Secretary of State or to those who will be reading the columns of the Tory Press, where his speech will no doubt tomorrow morning be hailed, again selectively, as a triumph. But those points matter a very great deal to my constituents and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), and those of others of my hon. Friends, who have had to live through the trauma of the last two or three years of Rolls-Royce and everything that has happened to that company.
I take it that at present we can still refer to Rolls-Royce as a company, but it is a company in receivership and now about to be divided into the assets of the aero-engine division and of the motor company. But still, in Crewe and Derby, the company is regarded as one company —Rolls-Royce. It is of that situation that I wish to speak briefly today.
I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend said, that the bankruptcy of the company was of the whole company. The launching aid given to the company by my right hon. Friend was aid given


to the whole company. When in 1968 Sir Denning Pearson and the Rolls-Royce board approached the then Government and asked them for aid—we heard today of the £47 million pledged then—on behalf of the Rolls-Royce board, he pledged that every asset of Rolls-Royce, down to the last radiator made in Crewe for its motor cars, would be put into the deal to back the RB211 engine. That is why the two are inextricably linked and why we cannot now simply look at the attempt to dispose of the assets of the motor company to private profit without looking at the history of the company, the aviation company and the motor company alike. My right hon. Friend was quite right to refer to that.
That bankruptcy was a very traumatic occasion for my constituents, the workers of Rolls-Royce in Derby. As a great deal of play has been made with the phase "operative statements", will the right hon. Gentleman or one of his right hon. or hon. Friends—perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South (Sir F. Corfield)—tell us whether it was an operative statement to say that the RB211 engine was significantly below its competitors? Was that a way of making the renegotiation of the contract easy?
If we are to consider what is operative and what is not in the remarks of previous Governments and the present Government, I submit then that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends should consider the remarks of those responsible for aviation policy at the time.
In the disposal of the assets of the company, the concern of my constituents —this is a matter which is brought constantly to my attention and to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) as the wreckage and the debris of the crash passes before us—is that the disposal of the assets, which materially affects the worker shareholders and the ordinary shareholders as well as the creditors and the debenture holders of the company, has dragged on for over two years.
Many hon. Members have probably received several of the latest statements. The final statement of the Rolls-Royce Shareholders Action Group, which is

led by Mr. Moloney, complains, as many of us have complained in the House— notably my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—that the whole of the hearings into the disposal of the assets of the aero-engine company has been kept a matter of secrecy by the Government. The Government have consistently refused to reveal to the House anything of their relations with the receiver. They have consistently refused to admit to the House that when negotiations took place for the aero-engine assets the Government were taking part whilst wearing another hat.
Mr. Moloney, in his statement to the Rolls-Royce Shareholders Action Group, complains about the attempt even to advance security reasons for the greater part of the hearings before the independent expert, which are now going on, which began on 1st May and to which the Government have not referred, not taking place in public. He says:
This pretence about National Security reached its nadir at the recent Court hearing on the Tax losses when Counsel had to obtain the permission of the Ministry of Defence before revealing in Court the two figures of £33·5 millions offered by Rolls-Royce (1971) and the £162 millions asked by the Liquidators. Apart from the fact that these two figures were widely known, what possible reason could there have been for invoking the Official Secrets Act to prevent these figures being given?
Two years and three months since the bankruptcy on 4th February 1971, the hearings are still continuing. The Government and Rolls-Royce (1971) appear to have offered no more than £33 million for the aero-engine assets of Rolls-Royce. The receiver is asking for more than five times that amount. The worker shareholders and the creditors of Rolls-Royce are entitled to ask what on earth is going on and why the matter has taken so long. Might we not at some stage have at least an indication that the Government are not attempting to do anything with the assets of the motor company?
It is a fact that the Government could buy up the assets of the motor company from the receiver precisely as the motion which my right hon. Friend has proposed suggests—namely let them buy for a tender price the assets of the motor company and be retained within the company which is corporately known as Rolls-Royce. They should be retained for the company and for the public


interest. My constituents are continually making the point that it is the public interest which should be served first. As so much public launching aid has already been given to Rolls-Royce over the years, such aid could also be extended to the motor division.
Many people feel that the continued performance of Rolls-Royce (1971), although they are very much heartened by the recovery of the RB211 project and what has happened since, has been bedevilled—this was one of the points which my right hon. Friend did not make —by the changes which the Government have from time to time appeared to force on the management of the company. Time after time in the last two years there have been changes in the management of the company. There was the shifting aside of Mr. Morrow, the removal of Mr. Geoffrey Fawn and now the enthronement of Sir Kenneth Keith —one of the highly paid group referred to by my right hon. Friend—as chairman. We read that Sir Kenneth is also to be tied up in the enormous merger between Hill Samuel and Slater Walker.
That was not a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted much attention. That seems to argue, even for the aero-engine side of Rolls-Royce which has been retained for the moment for the public, that the Government are not concerned to see the company run properly and wholeheartedly by full-time executives. It appears that they are content to go back to the old principles of the market and to let people pick up whatever portfolio and shareholding they may wish to run this company and others.
When we see the enormous sums involved in the Hill Samuel—Slater Walker merger, my constituents and those working in Rolls-Royce are not at all happy to think that the management of the company may still be on only a part-time basis. My constituents are not happy that important matters should be considered on a part-time basis and that that management should control their destinies. They are not happy to think that it might be the intention of the Government—this is another matter to which the Government have not referred —eventually to sell back to private enterprise the assets of the aero-engine company. It might be said that the sale

currently taking place of the assets of the motor company is no more than a trial run.
I shall now consider the disposal of the assets of the motor company. As my right hon. Friend has said, the two companies are still linked. They are linked in many ways because the shareholders of the one company are the shareholders of the other. Those who have been let down by the destruction of their shareholdings—those in the old Rolls-Royce company equally lament the passing of the motor side as the passing of the aero-engine side—feel that they stand to gain little from a disposal in which a new group of shareholders will now be invited to share the profitability, if there is profitability, on the motor side.
We are told, according to the latest figures for December, that profits of something in excess of £4 million may be expected from the Rolls-Royce motor division. But it is not good enough to say to the interested groups, be they workers or shareholders, that the public interest and public money can be repaid by public control only when there is a high risk element and that when there is a lower risk and a guaranteed profit that part of the company which was not the part which caused the exemplary bankruptcy two years ago should be hived off to private enterprise.
That is not good enough. The whole lot should be in public ownership. That is the basis of what my right hon. Friend has been saying. Further, I believe even more that that should be the case because of the intermingling of the work load at the Crewe factory. The Crewe factory and its subsidiaries contract work to the Derby aero-engine division in excess of £2 million annually. I regret that the increasing amount of work now contracted out by the Derby engine division to Crewe will at once remove £2 million of public money, which we are now asked to contemplate going out to private enterprise—something like one-third of the turnover of the company. It does not seem to us that that is a very good solution when so much public money has been involved over so long a period.
The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend did not take much account of public enterprise when he was


in charge. There might be something in that. I say this in all sincerity to my right hon. Friend. If we are speaking, not to various elements in our party but to the country at large, we should be clear not only about what we are saying we shall do with Rolls-Royce when we say we will bring Rolls-Royce Motors back into public ownership. We should also say that mistakes were made in the last Labour administration. We should say that we ought to have had much greater public control over those national assets into which public funds were placed on such a wide scale.
I do not believe that we can contemplate with equanimity giving £47 million in launching aid to Rolls-Royce without the slightest say as to how the company should be run and managed. I am glad that my right hon. Friend, by his nodded assent, agrees with that. We are not a party of expropriation. I welcome very much what my right hon. Friend has said. We are not a party which says that it will go out and wilfully or at random nationalise without any compensation any company purely upon a whim.
We have said that where the Government have pursued confiscatory policies, as they have in a number of areas, at least in their first two doctrinaire years, we might well retaliate in kind. We call in the motion for a fair price to be paid for the assets of the company. Let there be no mistake about that. We intend—it is certainly the intention of the workers and worker shareholders with whom I come into daily contact—that the Rolls-Royce Motor Company should be taken back into public ownership at a fair valuation.
Those of us who have been deeply involved in this crisis would accept that we are lost if we engage in internal party dialogue. What matters is what we are saying and not who first said it. It does not matter whether it is the national executive of our party or the annual conference or whatever. We are not a party of expropriation. We are a party of public ownership. We should say that loudly and clearly. We should have said it rather louder and more clearly at the time of the last General Election. Because we are saying it now loudly and clearly I believe that at the next election all those who have had to live through the last two

or three years of the Rolls-Royce tragedy —for tragedy it has been—will be with us in taking full control of Rolls-Royce, in their interests and in the national interest.

5.4 p.m.

Sir Frederick Corfield: I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks at any great length. There are, however, one or two points he made which I would like to take up.
The hon. Member made the point, although I do not know where he got his information from, that Sir Denning Pearson had gone to his right hon. Friend —this was before the hon. Member came to the House, I think—and pledged every radiator of the motor car division in support of the Rolls-Royce share of the launching aid. One would think that that was hardly an association which could be greatly to the advantage of those making motor cars when the whole of their future lay in the success of what was virtually another company, at any rate another division.
The hon. Member criticised with perfect justification the time that is being spent by the receiver and Rolls-Royce 1971 in reaching a fair price over the valuation of the aero-engine assets. I hope that he will at least give me this point. I was particularly anxious that the formula should be one for fair compensation and I insisted on the insertion of the words between "willing seller" and "willing buyer" as being the words which I think have become almost as a matter of history the most authoritative way of conveying that a fair valuation is required.
I do not believe that any of us contemplated that it would take so long. It is taking a long time because the effort is to reach a fair valuation, which I understand from the motion is what Labour Members wish. To come here and say "Would it not be a good idea to subject the motor car company to this same long delay?" does not seem to help the situation, particularly bearing in mind that the Public Accounts Committee demands very different things from those required by underwriters in the City.
The hon. Member also commented on the fact that a large part of the profits


of the motor car division were attributable to sub-contracting of aero-engine parts from the aviation division. This apparently was regarded as being in some way reprehensible. We have to remember that every aviation company throughout the Western world relies a great deal upon sub-contracting. It can only be reprehensible if it is alleged that the prices paid by the aviation division in the cross-accounting to the motor car division were in excess of market prices. If that is alleged I want to know why the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), during a much longer tenure of office than I had—and I had no suspicions about this—did not make an investigation into how those prices were calculated. If he was suspicious, he should have done that. If he was not suspicious, then he accepted that they were reasonable market prices. This is a typical type of contract of the aviation and engineering industries.
The hon. Member assured us, and we were glad of it, that his is not a confiscatory party. The fact is that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East stated that the Labour Party would confiscate or would take back this property without compensation. This appeared in practically every newspaper. I have a large supply of cuttings if the right hon. Gentleman would like to see them. I know how fascinated he is to see his name in print. There is no sign in any of them that he attempted to withdraw, deny or explain. That was what he said and it is that which we are entitled to debate today with regard to the effect it has had upon the issue of the Rolls-Royce shares.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have been constituency neighbours for over 18 years. We have profound differences of outlook, and in the heat of parliamentary debate we have debated with one another from our respective Front Benches, each in both opposition and government. Hitherto we have avoided personalities. I can only say that today I cannot acquit the right hon. Gentleman of malice. For example, he accused me of deliberate dishonesty. He said that 1 had come to the House and said that the Rolls-Royce collapse was inevitable, but that I had brought it about or connived at bringing it about by with-

holding promised launching aid. He knows that is not true.
The right hon. Gentleman also knows, or ought to know, that under these contracts for which he was responsible the phasing of the launching aid is worked out most precisely. The precise date or period of engine development at which each tranche become due is carefully determined. Has he inquired of Rolls-Royce or anywhere else, and can he produce any evidence that there were any tranches due that were not paid? Of course he has not, because there is none. Yet he is prepared to make these irresponsible allegations of dishonesty against other people.
Then the right hon. Gentleman attacked me for saying that I had denigrated the engine. I stand by every word I said—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: That is why the right, hon and learned Gentleman is on the back benches..

Sir F. Corfield: Perhaps it is the best place to be. I stand by what I said, for this reason. I know the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to understand this, but that was an honest, personal assessment, for which I do not blame my advisers in any way, of what I saw to be the difficulties of launching that engine in a climate in which the DC10 was already ahead of the 1011. If the right hon. Gentleman were honest—

Mr. Whitehead: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the point I raised. Does he now say that he stands by the remark he made in the House on 11th February of that year that the RB211 engine was significantly below its competitors? That is not a remark about the difficulties of launching. It is a remark about the capacity of the engine.

Sir F. Corfield: That is the statement to which I am referring. I do not rat on my statement. It is on the record. I said it and I believed it. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were absolutely honest and were to study the TriStar 1011—which is still the principal market for this engine, although there are prospects of marine adaptations and so on—they would have to admit that there is no other aircraft for which it has been selected. If the hon. Gentleman studies


how those orders are going—and this was nearly two-and-a-half years ago—can he really say that the right hon. Gentleman was more accurate in referring to the colossal potential of the engine? God knows, I hope that I am proved wrong, but I have not been yet, and the right hon. Gentleman has certainly not been proved right.
I ask the hon. Member for Derby, North also to bear in mind that that expression of opinion was made at a time when none of us knew whether Lockheed could survive to make the aeroplane for which the engine was designed. That eventually turned on one vote of Congress. The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as anyone, right from the start, of the possible financial crises which Lockheed might face. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman would say that we should have gone on making that engine if there was no aeroplane to put it in. The ability of Lockheed to proceed was absolutely vital.
Even if I had not made what I believe to be an absolutely honest assessment— and I accept that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to respect that—what was the position? We were setting up a new Government-owned aviation company. Throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman had said that without this engine the Rolls-Royce company had no future. As the Minister in charge, was I to say to the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Derby "If we cannot save this engine because it is not in our power to do so, your future is nil"? Is that the way in which to get a new company off the ground? It is a very odd way in which to do so. Had we adopted that attitude during the war, none of us would be here today.
As my right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was made after the issue of the Rolls-Royce motor shares had been underwritten. Therefore, I suppose, whatever his object was, it could not at that time have affected the money coming to the receiver to help to meet the creditors.
It is a curious threat to have made, to try to sabotage the private investor in buying from the underwriters but to fail to give the same warning to the people

who did the underwriting. That may have been purely inadvertent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not understand that he was too late to sabotage the issue. That is an interpretation which is borne out by an article which appeared on 9th May in The Guardian, a paper which is regarded, I understand, as an authority by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. Mr. David McKie of the political staff wrote:
Mr. Benn was not at all repentant because of suggestions that the offer might suffer after his intervention. In that case, the Government, he said, could always take the company into public ownership.
That comment hardly suggests that the right hon. Gentleman knew that it was too late to affect the sale. If he thought that his threat would affect the sale, one can only conclude that it was his deliberate intention to try to prejudice the interests of the creditors, for whom in this House he has purported to be so concerned, and, indeed, of the shareholders, who include the worker shareholders. If the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the position—and from his speech this afternoon one wonders how much he does understand—it is difficult to see on what ground it would be right to issue the warning to one set of potential investors and not to others. That distinction between the institutions on the one hand and the private investor on the other is every bit as reprehensible as the fact that the statement was ever made. Perhaps he wanted to see the institutions enticed into making a contribution to the creditors and then leaving them with £38·4 million outstanding to meet an obligation which the whole tenor of the motion suggests that he believes is the obligation of the Government.
Then there was the argument about nationalising and re-nationalising. The right hon. Gentleman quoted references to the repeated statements which were made from the Government Front Bench that the Government's purchase of Rolls-Royce assets was exclusively confined to the aero-engine divisions. In referring to that today, he spoke as if he regarded it as reprehensible that we had told him honestly and frankly what we intended to do and what was our policy. We were told that this was a wicked thing to do because, by saying that, we had told the receiver to go and sell the company. That is the inevitable consequence of the


provisions of the Companies Act which govern these matters. I cannot see how anyone can be blamed for coming to the House and honestly stating the facts. I know it is rare, but it should be done rather more often.
Again, we have made the position of the receiver abundantly clear. We have said that he represents the creditors and the shareholders in that order. I am surprised that so much explanation has been necessary during these months. It is an alarming thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who has held high offices of State does not appear to understand these things. But I do not insult his intelligence to that extent.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman understands perfectly well. I have no doubt that he knows that the receiver is a trustee for the creditors, appointed by the creditors and not by the Government. I have no doubt that he knows perfectly well that the receiver in the current arbitration proceedings is entirely independent of the Government. Therefore, it follows that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately misrepresented the situation.
Then there is the theory that we are hiving off the great profit centre. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that? Has he ever looked at the accounts? Why does he not look, for example, at the accounts given in the receiver's invitation to tender, issued in March? It is abundantly clear that up to 1968 the profit factor was fairly miserable, particularly when compared with the turnover which is to be seen in the column immediately above. If the right hon. Gentleman is pretending that this is the profit centre and that great surplus profits were being ploughed across into the aviation divisions to reduce the amount of Government aid that would otherwise be required, I suggest he takes a short course in accounting.
Again as both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have said, by far the larger portion of the revenue into that company reflects the sub-contract work done for the aviation division. All the evidence is that the motor car division almost certainly suffered a disadvantage from being linked to the aviation company because of the voracious demands of the latter for every penny of capital it could get for the aviation interests. To

the extent that this is a legitimate and likely view, it is strongly supported by the marked increase in the success of that company under the receiver since the divorce of the various divisions of the company took place.
Perhaps the final absurdity of all this is to nationalise the producer of possibly the biggest luxury in the world. Although we accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that his is not a confiscatory party, it has not been unknown that Mr. Jack Jones has more influence on what the party does than do some Labour Members.
The motion, in my view, is nonsense, because it is no longer possible to buy these assets from the receiver. The idea that it is only in the public sector that the workers' future can be safeguarded does not correspond with the record of public ownership under the Labour Government, or under other Governments. For example, one of the National Coal Board's main functions has been to run down its employees, and one would hardly say that steel nationalisation has been a roaring success in terms of preserving jobs.
When I was a Minister I had the privilege of meeting a large number of Rolls-Royce workers, for whom I had great respect. I am the first to agree and support the proposition that the skill and dedication of many of these workers is a very vital asset. But, contrary to what the motion claims, the workers themselves would be the first to say that they were not the only assets. Other things matter in this context, not least morale, which stems from the dynamic management in the private sector which evidently Mr. Nicholson is able to give.
I conclude with two points. The first is that having been involved in this rather traumatic affair, which, as the House will not be surprised to know, I do not look back upon with any pleasure, I have on many occasions thought about the various steps that were taken. I know the right hon. Gentleman will not accept my words but I think that other hon. Members will. I have honestly concluded that what we did was the only sensible alternative at the time, in the context of the situation. It was inconceivable to me that the aviation divisions should not be rescued and in a way in which there was no gap between the


collapse and the continuation under the Government. I simply do not understand the theory that, since because of an accident of history the motor car company is linked with this great international firm—admittedly competing with enormous Government subvention but in a market in which every other national aviation company competes with Government subvention—the motor car company should also be brought into the portfolio of the Labour Party's nationalisation.
I emphasised that, looking back, I believe that the action which was taken was right in the context of the circumstances ruling at the time. One cannot avoid a nagging doubt, however, when one looks at the complete change that has taken place in policy since then. The creditors of Rolls-Royce have been without their money for two and a half years, and it may be another year before they get the full amount. I think they have had about 60 per cent. We now have a policy which has switched virtually right the way round and by which people who are no more deserving than were Rolls-Royce can obtain subventions under a curious thing called the Industry Act. I find that situation a little unpalatable.
I look back on this affair as a fairly disagreeable experience. It had a few redeeming features. I hope that this will be my last speech on Rolls-Royce, and I want to take the opportunity of drawing attention to one of those redeeming features—namely, the intense loyalty I received from the people who worked for me in my Department. I am deeply grateful. Secondly, I remember a motion on this topic one Friday in which the hon. Member for Derby, North was involved. When I arrived I was confronted with no fewer than three highly critical articles from The Times. The other little tribute I should like to pay is to the representatives of the accepting houses whose members laid on an excellent lunch to assure me that they did not believe one word of the criticisms levelled at me in The Times.
I am grateful for the opportunity of recording those things which I remember and which I shall continue to remember with gratitude. The less pleasant aspects I shall forget, including the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I will remember the many occasions when the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South (Sir F. Corfield) came to the House to give us the latest saga of the crisis in Rolls-Royce, because one of the major aero-engine factories is situated in my constituency. I recall that from time to time some of us had a good deal of sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We felt that he was trying to persuade a somewhat reluctant Cabinet to do something more for Rolls-Royce, and we were sympathetic because on more than one occasion he returned to the House only to give us an unsatisfactory answer. We were aware that he had for the time being failed to convince the Cabinet.
The whole of the effort at that time owed a great deal to the assiduity and perseverence of a number of Members on both sides of the House who, in initiating debates, tabling Questions and keeping up the pressure, performed the House of Commons activity of possibly persuading the Government to change their mind to the extent that the Government produced the policy they did. Hon. Members on our side of the House were delightfully surprised when a Conservative Government decided to introduce one of the most ruthless pieces of nationalisation which had ever come from any Government.
It must also be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) played an important part in this matter, particularly at the time when we were in such doubt whether the RB211 would be bought by the Americans and when the issue hung on a thread. That is now in the past.
I rise to my feet on this occasion mainly because I was provoked to do so by the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the last two or three years we have seen the remarkable failure of the private enterprise party which now sits on the Government benches. We recall the failure to invest—though this is now picking up again and we may be in for a consumer-led boom; and we also know the dangers involved in that policy. We also look back at the high level of unemployment, and we have seen the Government forced to stand the Selsdon


Park doctrine on its head and to introduce the Industry Act—an Act which the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South sees as a rather uncomfortable reversal of Tory policy. Therefore, it is for the Government to justify their own attitude to the provision of subvention payments for private company boardrooms without ensuring an adequate social or economic return to the British people. The tenor of the argument today must be that the Government must justify themselves rather than that we should justify our intention to take into public ownership those companies which have succeeded in their policies only as a result of large injections of taxpayers' money.
The Conservatives have two attitudes to taxpayers' money, and they depend on what area of taxpayers' money they are dealing with. If they are dealing with injections of money into private enterprise—if it is money expended in connection with the lame duck policy, £15 million here and £30 million there, or indeed a sum of £150 million allocated to Rolls-Royce in the past—in the minds of the Conservative Party there is a total justification for taxation and, indeed, a need for increased taxation to enable those things to be done. But when one thinks in terms of helping the disabled, raising pensions and doing things for ordinary people, suddenly the Conservatives stress the impossibility of finding money for those purposes. There is total schizophrenia in the Conservative Party about its attitude to taxation according to what areas of activity the taxation will benefit.
When we look at the relationship between the public and the private sectors, we have to ask what is the service which the private sector, in so far as it is supported by public money, is rendering to the national economy. There are certain areas in which everybody, irrespective of party politics, wants to see the nation succeed, and to this extent there is a national will towards those ends. We all want to see exports thrive, a healthy balance of payments and effective job creation in the regions. As part of this progress we want to see a high level of employment; we want to see expansion and a higher level of industrial investment. These are national ends, and on the whole the nation will support the

party which it believes is most likely to achieve these national objectives. The country will support the party which it believes can achieve those national objectives in fairness, justice and equity to everybody concerned.
But then the Conservative Party says "In terms of the public sector, we shall take out of it those parts which might be in danger of yielding a profit to the taxpayer". It says "We shall hive off the profitable parts of the existing publicly-owned industries". It does not say— and one wonders why in the light of some of the things said by the Secretary of State this afternoon—that it is demanding denationalisation of some of the other existing elements of the public sector. We do not hear any cries for the denationalisation of electricity, atomic energy, gas or coal. Why not? The answer is clear, and it is clearest of all to City boardrooms. The reason why the Conservative Party is not demanding wholesale denationalisation is that 20 per cent of the gross national product in the public sector is now that part of British industry which is largely of a service nature and which is not of its nature concerned with the expansion of production because it is not related to manufacturing it is in fact subsidising the private sector. This is why the Tories do not want to denationalise a major part of the existing public sector. This is why they are interested only in hiving off the profitable parts of the public sector.
When we come to look at the job that needs to be done in the economy, it is clear that the existing public sector is extremely limited in being able to offer to the nation those greater possibilities of employment and exports and meeting the other objectives which I have outlined. It is not in the service industries where expansion will take place, although if it is not limited by a Conservative Government, there are measures of diversification which can result. Industry can move here or there into little bits of productive industry, but in the public sector it is very limited indeed.
Therefore, it is to productive manufacturing industry that we must now look for greater exports and investment, employment and particularly job creation in the regions. The private manufacturing sector, in spite of all the exhortations of the Government and the tax incentives


of government has not over the last 10 to 15 years come up to national expectations of increasing exports. Because of its performance, some of us are considering the need for an expansion of the public sector in order to meet national economic objectives, a view we did not take 10 or 15 years ago when we thought that, given governmental incentives and exhortations, the private sector would be able to succeed. It is now clear that it cannot.
We know that, according to a recent analysis, about 75 firms are responsible for the majority of British exports. We know that many private British firms which should be exporting are not doing so. They should be introducing techniques and methods which would allow them to export, but they are not. No amount of Government exhortation or direct assistance seems able to persuade them to become successful exporters. However, they are remarkably successful importers, and that is one of the problems of the balance of payments.
Let us consider the problem of job creation in the regions, an objective which has been accepted with varying degrees of sincerity in all parts of the House. All hon. Members would agree that one of the urgent needs of our economic situation is to correct the imbalance of industry as the older industries decline and the new technological industries, largely concentrated in the Midlands and the South East, and now probably concentrated much more in the areas of the country nearest to Western Europe, take over. In spite of all the various incentives, whether investment grants or tax incentives, successive Governments have not so far managed to give the necessary correction to regional imbalance and create the jobs which are needed in the regions.
British Leyland has announced its first major expansion for some years. It is to undertake a new major project in the car industry and we shall now witness a battle in the regions as to where that project should go, because it is so rare for private enterprise to provide anything substantial outside London, the Midlands and the South East. What is to be done? In 1964 the Labour Party manifesto said that where private enterprise coud not provide the jobs that were

needed in the regions, public enterprise would have to move in and do it instead. We spent six or seven years discovering that, no matter what Governments did, private enterprise still failed to provide jobs in the regions.
What is now becoming clearer is that, if jobs are to be provided in the regions, it will have to be the public sector which provides them, and if it is the public sector it will have to be as the result of manufacturing firms coming within the public sector. It will have to be as the result of diversification into manufacturing and production by the existing nationalised industries. The private sector is clearly unable to do what is required. Similarly, the private sector showed itself utterly unresponsive to all the efforts of the Government to encourage investment when the nation needed it.
Not only is the private sector unresponsive to Government policies on these matters concerning the most urgent and basic questions of our economy, but it is so unresponsive that successive Governments have found it impossible to predict what will happen even a year ahead. As anyone who has been in government will know, the Treasury issues medium-and short-term assessments. These are proved all too often to be wildly wrong, so that after six months the Treasury comes forward with another medium-term assessment, admits that it was wrong in its original estimates, and hence the revised figures. A modern nation cannot be run on this kind of relationship, with the Government seeking to express national objectives which are beyond the private sector's ability to achieve. If it cannot be run in that way, as we now see, there must be a change in the balance between the private and the public sectors in those key areas where help can be given and where the Government have the capacity to determine what happens.
This is why it is essential that those key areas of the economy should be involved much more in the public sector. Of course, all the nonsense which has been talked this afternoon, all the jesting about the Labour Party's view of compensation is a nonsense. Let us hear no more about it. We have made it clear throughout the years that when we take new industries into the


public sector, we pay compensation. However, we have now gone on to say that, because of the behaviour of the Government, because of the profit hunger of the Government for their City friends, where they denationalise a profitable part of the public sector we shall regard it as wrong that people should make a profit out of that denationalisation. I hope that is now clear to the Minister and that we shall have an end to some of the fun and games about this aspect of Labour Party policy.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Perhaps the right hon. Lady will comment on what happens where an asset is denationalised and the private sector increases the value of that asset after denationalisation. Presumably the increased valuation would be taken into account in any renationalisation terms.

Mrs. Hart: Perhaps I could put it in much more simple terms. Where someone has acquired shares in a denationalised company—denationalised because it was held by the Tory Government to be a profitable part of the public sector— we do not regard it as right that a profit should be made out of that acquisition. Circumstances will vary and I do not pretend that I can spell out the precise formula for each different circumstance, whether for Thomas Cook or whatever else it might be. I say only that our intention is clear. We do not regard it as right that profit should be made out of a Tory policy of hiving off, and we shall make sure that a profit is not made out of it.
We are advancing an argument which goes back to pre-war days. It certainly goes back to the days when the first postwar Labour Government was bringing the basic industries of the country into public ownership—bringing them into public ownership because, unless they were publicly-owned and unless public investment went into them, the whole of the national economy would not survive. The mines had been neglected, as had the railways, and only with the injection of public money would it have been possible for the nation to survive that post-war period.
Time and the argument have moved on. If the Conservatives believe that they can conduct any longer in any meaningful way an argument about private versus public ownership without

reference to national objectives, they are wildly out of touch with the way the nation is thinking. People are much more concerned today about how to get done the things they want to see Governments doing. If Governments show by the results of their policies that they are failing to get done what the nation wants to see done, the nation will be ready— and I believe it is ready—to look at the alternative ways of approaching the task, giving the Government a direct instrument of planning, something that will not be circumvented all the time by City boardrooms, giving the Government, on behalf of the people, a way to direct and control the economy in the national interest that will not be frustrated all the time by the inevitability of the private company, perfectly correctly from its own point of view, regarding the interest of its own shareholders as more important than the interests of the nation.
It is in this area that we shall now be debating this issue. I think that the country is ready to look with a clear mind at this idea. I have no doubt that, as it does so, it will recognise that what we are saying is the relevant thing to be said in terms of national needs. What the Conservative Party says in terms of Selsdon Park or the somersaults it has done afterwards are becoming increasingly irrelevant by comparison with the antics that my right hon. Friend referred to. These antics are becoming more exciting than the murders and sex stories in the papers. We have the latest antics in the courts, over Lonrho, and the latest antics in the boardrooms, like Slater-Walker. They are becoming fascinating to the public, who are beginning to have a much clearer insight into what matters in the City boardroom and what does not matter. They are beginning to see that the interests of the nation are not the interests that matter in City boardrooms.
The public must therefore be ready for the debate to enter a new phase, part of which is precisely the area raised by my right hon. Friend in the motion—the need to be sure that we do not consider the question of which parts of industry become publicly-owned and which parts remain privately-owned in terms of the interests of shareholders but that we determine these matters in the interests of the nation.

5.47 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I hope that the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Judith Hart) will excuse me if I do not follow her fairly wide-ranging argument, but try, as we have only one-and-a-quarter hours left, to bring the discussion back to Rolls-Royce.
For many years before the war there trundled over the roads of Great Britain a vehicle known as the Sentinel steam wagon. This machine was built in my constituency, and when the steam wagon went out of fashion and out of use the company that manufactured it found that its progress became uncertain. It was never very bad but, equally, it was never very good. In 1956, however, the company which had then succeeded the Sentinel Steam Wagon Company, was taken over by Rolls-Royce, which has, under one name or another, remained the proprietor ever since.
Since 1956, the success story of the Rolls-Royce factory in Shrewsbury, which makes the diesel engines, has been steady and continuous. All those calamities and difficult things that happened to the factory in Shrewsbury had an air of unreality about them. Today, the Shrewsbury company produces about 20 per cent. of the whole group's output. In the last three years, that percentage has risen by 5 per cent., whereas, over the same period, the aero-engines side has decreased by about 15 to 18 per cent. Also, 30 per cent. of the diesel engine output goes for export.
Of the 8,000 employees of the company, over 2,300 are employed in Shrewsbury. The annual payroll going into that small area is over £3 million per annum, and involves the welfare of 7,000 of my constituents. So the future success of the company and this factory is vitally important to the welfare of my constituents.
Let us consider the future. As I understand it, the planned output of diesel engines by Rolls-Royce this year is up by about 28 per cent. on 1972, and over the next two or three years the company expects an annual increase of about 25 per cent. By the end of that period there will be employment for another 3,000 people in that factory. The future of the factory and the company is vital not only

to those who work in the factory but to the town of Shrewsbury itself.
This is the point at which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) walked in. He must have the biggest feet in the business; they always seem to be there. I do not want to argue about what he said. He may have said "without compensation". He may have meant it. He may have consulted the Leader of the Opposition, and he may not. He may have been misunderstood, or he may even have tried to sow doubts. The fact remains that neither I nor anyone on the Government side of the House believes that nationalisation is the answer, since there is no hope of nationalising one part of the motor industry without destroying all the competition in that industry. We see no hope of a nationalised company succeeding—

Mr. Ashton: How does the hon. Gentleman equate that with the experience in France and Germany, where nationalised Renault and nationalised Volkswagen compete with private enterprise?

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I will not go into the history of the way in which Volkswagen and Renault came to be nationalised. I do not think—and the experience of this country does not suggest—that there is any likelihood that a nationalised industry confronted with competition will succeed. I am saying no more than that.

Mr. Whitehead: This is an interesting point. Surely the closest analogy is Italy, where another high-performance car firm, Alfa Romeo, was taken over by the State holding company, IRI, was kept for many years, and was highly profitable, in direct competition with capitalist firms.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I have not come here to argue the needs of Italy, France, Germany, Russia or any other place. All that I am saying is that I see no prospect in this country of a partly nationalised motor car industry being successful in competition with the varying entities in the industry. Rolls-Royce Motors should no longer have its arm jogged, or be criticised, or argued about. All that it wants is to be left alone to get on with the job. The great disservice that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East did is that at the worst


possible moment, psychologically, he chose to utter words which he must have known would have a near-disastrous— thankfully, only "near-disastrous"— effect on the events that took place.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: What would the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have said during the last election if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) had forecast that if the Tories were returned to power they would nationalise Rolls-Royce? They would have given the same answer as they have given today—that it would be unthinkable to nationalise Rolls-Royce Motors. But because of the failure of private interprise to run the Rolls-Royce engine division, they realised that nationalisation was the only way to save the company and the jobs involved.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I was not giving way: I had in fact sat down. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, of course we should have been surprised, but no doubt we should have been surprised to be confronted with the prospect of Rolls-Royce being bankrupt and not viable.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I will not take up all the arguments of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt). I agree with much of what he has said, although he did not bring forward the most important argument against nationalising or re-nationalising the Rolls-Royce motor division. The motion is a non-sequitur; there is no connection between the first part and the second. I agree that the Government—not only this Government, and not only since the bankruptcy, but long before—have grossly mishandled their dealings with Rolls-Royce. But to proceed from that statement of the obvious, as the motion does, to the conclusion that the company should be nationalised, is to proceed without the benefit of logic or common sense.
Surely the very opposite is the correct and proper conclusion. If the Government have mishandled the affairs of Rolls-Royce they should not be allowed to do so again. They should be removed, so far as is humanly possible, from all non-essential contact with the affairs of that company. Force of circumstance, and nothing that one could call thoughtful

or calculated or deliberate planning, has brought the Government into the affairs of this unhappy company. In my view, they have botched the job. They have made a masterful mess of their enforced intervention. Surely we cannot argue from this that the Government should therefore intervene even more, for ever and anon, as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn) said was the Opposition's desire.
What Rolls-Royce has suffered from, over a long period, is not too little but too much intervention by both Governments. At every point at which the Government have intervened in its affairs, it has been an unmitigated disaster for the company, its employees, and its shareholders. With all this experience behind us, we can and must conclude that Rolls-Royce needs nationalisation like a hole in its cylinder head.
To prove this contention it is necessary only to retrace the steps of Government intervention, starting with the basic decision to build the RB211. Here was a great engineering company, a national institution, the very purr and roar of whose engines seemed to British sentimentalists of both right and left to be playing "Rule Britannia". Somehow or other, by hook or by crook, this company had to be carried into the next generation of aero-engines. If this could not be done, Britain would be out of the big time world aero-engine league for ever.
It is highly likely that if this company had been left to its own devices it would never have found the resources to build the RB211. The Government of the day therefore leaned on the company and encouraged it in a certain political direction. They leaned on it with all their political weight to build an uncommercial engine, and then, when the development costs had reached a point at which it could not be sold at a commercial price, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, in his £ as Minister of Technology, leaned on it again to sell this engine at an uncommercial price, through a ruinously uncommercial contract, to the Americans.

Mr. Benn: I am sorry I was out of the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman began to speak. Would he kindly alter that statement? The plain truth is that the


Economist said quite clearly in its comment that, far from the Government's leaning on Rolls-Royce in 1968, Rolls-Royce pleaded continually with the Government to support the engine. The Government—and I was the Minister speaking for them—made it absolutely clear to Rolls-Royce that it would get no support whatsoever for the RB211 unless it had a foreign partner and three launching orders. When Rolls-Royce accepted that, it pledged its total assets, and right up until after the 1970 elections on 21st July 1970, Sir Denning Pearson made it clear that in his view Rolls-Royce had all the resources it required to carry the engine through.
What the hon. Gentleman suggested, no doubt accidentally, is totally and completely inaccurate.

Mr. Pardoe: In fact, it was not at all an accidental comment, and it is not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to call in aid the Economist on one point. It must be the only occasion in his whole career on which the Economist agreed with him.
In the argument I was making before the right hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber I was apportioning blame equally. That is not very difficult to do. It is the view of the great majority of the British people that both Governments are equally to blame. The point I was making was that it was Government intervention that brought about the downfall of this company.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to remind the House of the statement by the right hon. Gentleman on 23rd November 1970, when he said:
The RB211 order was a product of co-operation between the company, my old Department and the civil servants working in it …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23 November 1970; Vol. 807, c. 38.]

Mr. Pardoe: I think that that to a certain extent answers the point, but the basic answer to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is that this company would never have built this engine without Government intervention. Therefore, Government intervention has proved an unmitigated disaster to the company. Now the right hon. Gentleman wants to prolong Government intervention by

nationalisation of the motor sphere as well as everything else, for ever and anon.
At that point the General Election intervened, and the present Government were returned with all sorts of preconceived political lunacies around their neck. It was in fact a Government determined to teach British industry a lesson, to purge the British people of their so-called weakness, and the Government were looking for symbolic acts by which to accomplish these aims.
Rolls-Royce fell into their lap—a lame duck ripe for the plucking. Since then, things have changed. A great deal of the taxpayers' money, for one thing, has been squandered unnecessarily and the Government have thrown their electoral philosophy overboard and packed their wildfowler in chief off to a duckpond in Brussels.
If ever there was gross mishandling by Government, this is undoubtedly it, and both Governments are guilty. Both sacrificed common sense and commercial judgment to the dictates of party dogma and election manifestoes. On this record, both ought to be banished from any further meddling in matters that they clearly do not understand.
Before I go on to the question of nationalisation and the Labour Party's threats, I want to deal very briefly with the question of the workers' shares, because it is a question which concerns my party very closely indeed, in that, for a long time, we have been identified with policies to encourage the participation of workers in the ownership of shares in the companies in which they work.
But the ownership of shares is part of a total policy for industrial democracy. It is not sufficient simply to invest money in one's firm and then hope the management will look after it. The management has to be made directly responsible to those who are investing the money —to the employees, to the members of the firm. This has to be done through a whole process of industrial democracy —workers' councils, and the election of directors to supervisory boards by the workers. But, at the end of the day, when that has been done and when a coach and horses have been driven through the present structure of British


industrial companies, anyone who invests his money in a company must take the good with the bad. He must take the risk. I accept that this is implicit in our policy, and I would never dream of trying to hide the fact.
What, exactly, is the Labour Party's policy on nationalisation—revealed to us as a result of the events over the last week or so? We have the conference resolution—Resolution 14, on public ownership, passed at the 1971 Party Conference. It states that the Labour Party policy towards any assets denationalised is complete nationalisation without compensation immediately upon the return of the next Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East presumably thought, when he made his statement, that Rolls-Royce Motors came within that category, and was something that had already been nationalised by the present Government. Otherwise, why would he have made the threat? Moreover, he confirmed this when he questioned whether the fact that it was or was not in public ownership was a mere technicality. In today's speech he spoke of millions of pounds of public money being poured into the company. The implication was that this also made it in some way technically nationalised.
Now we are told that Rolls-Royce Motors will not be nationalised without compensation. We have been told that by the right hon. Gentleman today, when he spoke of the Labour Party as never having threatened confiscation, and in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour Party, when he said:
It is not the policy of the Labour Party that shareholders in the automobile sector of Rolls-Royce should be dispossessed of their shares without compensation.
We therefore have a certain mix-up about the exact policy towards this motor company.
What, in fact, is the limit to the Labour Party's policy of nationalisation? I do not want to be doctrinaire about this, because, in my view, there are cases in which there is clearly an argument for nationalisation. I think water is an obvious case, although that may involve a mere transference within the public sector from local control to national control. Again, I agree that cases will

inevitably arise in which there ought to be public ownership—whether it be at local or national level, I am not now concerned—of building land. On frequent occasions I have advocated a much greater use of compulsory purchase to bring this about, but I would want to take that argument further still.
Surely there is some limit, and surely the remark made from the Government side, in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, about the commanding heights of the economy is to a certain extent relevant. Are we to understand that it is no longer part and parcel of Labour's policy that nationalisation shall be limited in any way by that phrase? Are we to understand that it is the policy of that party to nationalise not only the commanding heights of the economy but what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) would, I am sure, call the candy floss of the economy as well?
I am not quite sure in which category Rolls-Royce Motors should be placed. Is it a car company, or is it a part of the expensive end of the fun-leisure market? Frankly, for my money it is the latter rather than the former. People are entitled to manufacture fun-leisure products, even very expensive ones, but let us suppose that Rolls-Royce had owned a subsidiary company which manufactured bingo tickets, or was, perhaps, the proprietary company of Men Only. Would the Labour Party be arguing that because it was part of a company which was now in total nationalisation the Government would not be right to sell Men Only, or the bingo tickets firm, or whatever, to private enterprise, but that it should somehow be considered as part of the commanding heights of the economy and that the public should retain ownership?
I cannot see that that could be argued. Should the Government have a direct interest—as they will if they nationalise Rolls-Royce Motors—in encouraging people to buy Rolls-Royce cars? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that a future Labour Government will want to be in the position of trying to sell Rolls-Royce cars to the British people? How will that tie up with Labour's future taxation policies, with its expense account policies, and with its distribution of wealth policies? I would not wish to be any


part of a Government whose need was to sell Rolls-Royce cars to the British people.
Part of the answer seems to be that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been poured into the company, and that this somehow justifies public ownership. It certainly justifies public interest, and a stake in the equity. I am only sorry that both Governments have not taken an equity share in those private companies in which they have placed taxpayers' money. But the more important question—and I ask this of the right hon. Gentleman, since he was to a certain extent responsible for pumping in a lot of money—is whether the taxpayer thinks he got good value for the money spent on Concorde or the RB 211. I suspect that the taxpayer thinks that his money was wasted in both cases, and that he is justified to a large extent in thinking so. Why did the Government not see to what use the money was being put?
There is no case for the nationalisation of the cars division. It is an irrelevancy. There is a curious contradiction in the new attitude of the Labour Party, expressed in its policy document, which is about to be published. There is a considerable passage advocating the greater decentralisation of Government decision-taking, with the encouragement of provincial or regional government and decision-taking nearer to the people. That is decentralising decision-taking. But the whole essence of free enterprise is that it decentralises decision-taking, and therefore there is no logic in saying, on the one hand, that one is in favour of decentralising Government decision-taking to the provinces or the regions while, on the other hand, one is not following the logic through into the economics.
The answer to all these uncertainties in the Labour Party's policy on nationalisation, and the reason why the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman have nothing whatever to do with what a Labour Government, if they ever come to power, will actually do, is that we all know, as he does, that no Labour Government are going to do any of the things contained in his speeches. No one believes it; he does not believe it himself. He is whistling in the dark, and if

the Labour Party goes into the next election with a manifesto containing this sort of botched-up nonsense it will be a leaky sieve, as was the 1970 manifesto of the present Government, and the right hon. Gentleman will be pitching as much water out of that manifesto as the Conservatives have done out of theirs.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: As Dr. Johnson said about women preachers, the surprising thing about this debate is that it is taking place at all. I thought that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn) would approach the subject of Rolls-Royce with considerable humility, if not reticence. But that is not his way. I do not propose to follow his arguments or those of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on the troubled history of Rolls-Royce. I wish to concentrate on what I believe to be the main issue—whether Rolls-Royce should have been wholly nationalised at the time of its troubles in 1971. The right hon. Gentleman argues that the company should have been brought wholly within public ownership. That was his argument at the time, and that is his argument today, and it is expressed in the motion.
There could have been no question of the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of the fact that part of Rolls-Royce— Rolls-Royce Motors—was not brought within public ownership at the time of the nationalisation of the aero-engine division. What is one to make of the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary statement last week? He knew that Rolls-Royce Motors had not been brought within public ownership. Whatever he has said today about the enormous sums of money poured into Rolls-Royce is quite irrelevant to the plain fact that he knew at the time, and subsequently, that Rolls-Royce Motors had never been brought within public ownership.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement:
Let me issue a solemn warning so that there can be no possibility of any mistake on the part of those who think they are going to take quick and easy profits at public expense out of the deal.
Then he referred to the official policy of the Labour Party, that where public assets had been sold off by the present


Government renationalisation would occur without compensation.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that that is what he said. I do not believe that he could conceivably deny that he knew, all the time, that Rolls-Royce Motors had never formed part of the nationalised concern. How could he have made that statement when he—none better—knew that it had never been nationalised?
One could put the right hon. Gentleman's statement down—to a momentary aberration—as one can with so many of his statements. But even that explanation will not do, because it was not a momentary aberration. The statement was made after the most careful consultation through all the usual channels. It had been discussed at length in the Shadow Cabinet. It had been disussed with the Leader of the Opposition himself on two separate occasions, and the Leader of the Opposition had made drafting amendments to the statement.
So we know that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East knew that Rolls-Royce Motors had never formed a part of the nationalised concern. Yet he said not only that Rolls-Royce Motors ought to be brought within public ownership, but that those who bought shares from the receiver in the offer of sale would find that those shares would be nationalised without any form of compensation. Whatever he may say now, that was also the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who saw the statement before it was made.
One can only conclude that both the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the Leader of the Opposition knew the position, and that this was a deliberate statement. Of course, there has now been a change. We have had a new statement from the Leader of the Opposition. But if it is the position, as it was declared to be, that, in respect of those companies which ought to have been nationalised but were not, there would be no compensation, should it not also apply to all the other manufacturing concerns which the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) told us today should be brought within public ownership? If Rolls-Royce Motors should be brought within public ownership without compen-

sation, why should not the same fate apply to all the other manufacturing concerns on which the right hon. Lady has her eye? It is difficult to see any difference between those companies and Rolls-Royce Motors.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is not really concerned with the shareholders of Rolls-Royce Motors, or with the old shareholders of Rolls-Royce. One can understand his antipathy towards them, given his attitude. But he is not concerned with the creditors of the company, either. I do not believe that he has ever been, despite his protestations. He says in his statement:
Rolls-Royce Motors and their workers whose skill is the only real asset of the company should be retained within the public sector.
I wonder what the workers in Rolls-Royce and the industry itself think of the right hon. Gentleman, or what they would do if ever Rolls-Royce Motors were, unhappily, to be nationalised, when all that would happen would be that the profits of the company would go not to the shareholders but to the country, without any improvement in the workers' position. I cannot think that they would be materially comforted by that reflection. Happily, though, we have some guide to the attitude of the workers in Rolls-Royce Motors. Mr. Gallimore, the chairman of the works committee at Crewe, said last week:
Personally, I think Mr. Benn should have kept his mouth shut.
I do not agree. I think that Mr. Gallimore was wrong. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East should be encouraged to make statements every day of the week. However, he needs no encouragement. It comes very easily to him.
Now the official position is different. We have had a statement from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) saying:
It is not the policy of the Labour Party that shareholders in the automobile section of Rolls-Royce should be dispossessed of their shares without compensation. This was clear from the operative paragraph of Mr. Benn's statement.
One cannot help wondering which was the inoperative paragraph of that statement. However, that is for the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party to work out.
If the proposals of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and his party for nationalising further manufacturing concerns were to be carried out. I cannot help wondering how they would be paid for. Let us assume that they carried this policy into practice. If they are genuine in saying that there should be fair compensation, the only way in which shareholders can be compensated is by the issue of Government securities. However, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East will know that there are no Government securities of any long-term date which can be sold to the public at less than an interest rate of over 10 per cent. If the Opposition were ever, unhappily, to return to power, the position would be that they would have to issue Government securities on which the taxpayer would have to pay an interest rate of over 10 per cent. in order to acquire assets which then, and probably long into the future, paid less. How could the deficit be made up?
There are other parts of the programme which we shall shortly find revealed to us. Judging by the way the Press seems to be leaking the manifesto of the Labour Party every day, we shall be conversant with all of it by the end of next week.
How would the Labour Party propose to pay for the deficit—the amount to be raised by the taxpayer in paying interest on gilt-edged securities compared with the value of the assets and the return on them? One suggestion is by means of a wealth tax. That is a very interesting suggestion. If all wealth over £50,000 was confiscated and distributed to everyone in the country, we should each be £150 better off. I do not know how long Opposition Members think that that sum would last—

Mr. Frank McElhone: It is a lot of money to some people.

Mr. Hordern: I know that. But if the Opposition think that they can pay for their proposals by making everyone in the country £150 better off, they have a very long way to go in their thinking.

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry to distract the hon. Gentleman from his argument about Rolls-Royce, but is he now saying that he is in favour of 80 per cent. of the country's wealth being owned by 10 per cent. of the people?

Mr. Hordern: I am saying nothing of the kind. I should be delighted to join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) in an argument about a wealth tax, and who owns what. However, if the Labour Party thinks that it can meet this deficit by means of a wealth tax, it is quite wrong.
Perhaps the Opposition would try to pay for it by taking in tax all incomes above £5,000 a year, net. If they did that, we should all be worth an extra £3·60 a year.
The Opposition's proposals are a complete charade. There is no way by which they can possibly finance their proposals, and they know it. They are just trying to impose an impossible and fruitless policy on the country, and they will fail, as they always have.
In all this the Leader of the Opposition has been playing his customary role of keeping the party together and following every horse. There was once a well-known racing character known as Prince Monolulu. The Leader of the Opposition has some of the characteristics of Prince Monolulu, who had a horse for every race. It was sometimes suggested uncharitably, that Prince Monolulu had every horse in every race. The distinction between Prince Monolulu and the Leader of the Opposition is that the right hon. Gentleman never appears to have a successful horse. One has only to consider some of his recent statements. In Czechoslovakia he said that the events of August 1968 were best forgotten. On Rolls-Royce he said—

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Are we debating Rolls-Royce, the possibility of a wealth tax, or the Czecho-slovakian incident in this short debate?

Mr. Speaker: The argument has been fairly wide-ranging. However, I remind the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) of what he said to me earlier. I am hoping to call another hon. Member from the Opposition side before the respective Front Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Hordern: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am about to conclude my remarks.
The Opposition know that they are in complete disarray on Rolls-Royce, on nationalisation, and on every other aspect of their policy.
If I might return to Prince Monolulu for a moment—he always had a slip of paper to show what his view was. That was more than the Leader of the Opposition had on the May Day strike—when he abstained. That is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and Prince Monolulu.
The Opposition are in complete disarray. They have a bundle of policies for which they can never pay, and the country will see through them every time.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: When I came into the Chamber today I had no overmastering desire to speak. I have sat through the whole debate, most of the time deeply interested in it. However, it has hardly been a debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) addressed the Secretary of State quite seriously, and a string of questions remain unanswered. The Secretary of State had his brief well polished by Tory Central Office or one of his civil servants. Then the fun and joke book came out. We had a skit on something which my right hon. Friend was alleged to have said last week. I say "alleged to have said" because the right hon. Gentleman could not quote it. All that he was able to do was read the brief before him. He did not attempt to rationalise what my right hon. Friend is supposed to have said.
Several questions have been asked today, and I hope that the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping will be able to answer them. We expect to hear answers.
The first question concerns the principle of public policy on which it is proper to sell public assets for private profit. When this Government came into office they were determined to rescue no lame ducks. What killed that more than anything else was Rolls-Royce. When we read headlines to the effect that Rolls-Royce had gone bust a great deal of alarm went through the country. It was not only about the thousands of people in Derby that we were concerned. The "R-R" symbol on a car radiator is even better known abroad than the Royal Coat of Arms. The Rolls-Royce crash was taken almost as a national disaster.
The right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South (Sir F.

Corfield) had to react. I had some sympathy with him today. He seemed like a good man struggling with adversity. However, he was not to know that the Government would change their policy. They did so at the time under the force of circumstances, because they dared not do anything else. In much the same way their policy collapsed in face of the miners later on. The only excuse that the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South has is that he did what he thought right at the time. That was inherent in his speech. He did not know that the Government would change their policy.
We have therefore had this afternoon a debate in which questions were put to the Government side, and we have received no adequate answers. One would not think that there was any crisis within capitalism in this country at the present time. One would not have thought that thousands of people throughout the country ever depended upon serious consideration by the Government. We were often accused of being doctrinaire, but we were never as doctrinaire as the Conservative Members. As a matter of fact, when one considers the obscenities that we have heard in the Law Courts in the last few days, one could never claim that the members of my trade union—which is the principal trade union in Rolls-Royce—are the most rapacious people in this country. The right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South might have come up with different answers if he had known what the policy was to be. He did not know what it was going to be. He was manipulated and thoroughly got at. Everybody knows that.
What are we to do now? There is no doubt that public money was involved. The company was kept going by public money year after year. When it was announced that Rolls-Royce had secured the contract for the RB211, it was considered to be a great national triumph. It was only afterward that matters were turned round and the whole thing condemned.
I know that the present Government did not want to take the line they did, because that was an outrage against the mandate on which they were elected. They found themselves in a situation and


they reacted to it. Now, they sell assets as cheerfully as they can.
What about the other questions on which we are entitled to answers? What justification can there be for cheating the worker shareholders of £2 million and paying the City the same amount to float the company off on to the market? What about that?
Those are the sort of things which have occurred in the last few days. I have great regard for the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) but his name was linked recently with a matter which, however innocent he might be, can do no credit to his name and no credit to the institutions of the City of London or the great firms that operate there. The workers throughout the country will look at that and then will look at the recent struggle in which the hospital workers were practically starved into submission. They are a most deserving section of the community, but their case was not considered on its merits. It was used to vindicate a policy of the Government. The Prime Minister was going to be as tough as he boasted he was. He does not come as tough when he has to face up to the big boys. He would not have been tough with the miners if their policy had been different. He simply caved in.
This has been a discreditable debate, because the Government have made no attempt to reply to the case as it was put to them this afternoon. They merely rolled off on a silly lot of personalities that do no credit to the House and its stature in the country.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I agree strongly with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has just said. It certainly allows me to be brief in winding-up the debate. The Secretary of State simply did not address himself to any of the questions. I am sorry he did not do so, because when the cheers of his supporters are forgotten his words in HANSARD will be looked at to see whether they give any clue to what the Government's attitude should be towards the worker shareholders who will be left absolutely out of account and what his attitude might be towards public assets.
The right hon. Gentleman confined himself to pressing me on Labour's policy on future nationalisation, when he is a member of a Government which has changed every major item of policy several times during the three years they have been in power.
It is not my wish to make this conclusion of mine different from my opening comments. I want to make this a serious conclusion, as I did in my earlier remarks. If I may come back to what I have said about public assets, we shall see to it that no profits are made where public assets are hived off for private gain. How we shall do it will depend upon the circumstances. In the case of the airline groups, they will be taken back. In other cases, we shall not expropriate or confiscate—such a thing was never said —but we shall see that nobody makes a profit out of what the public has built up by taxpayers' contributions.

Mr. Adam Butler: The right hon. Gentleman has described Rolls-Royce as obligated, although this side of the House would not agree. He says that no profits are to be made when he renationalises. Does this mean that when and if his party gets back to power and it renationalises, it will do so at today's valuation?

Mr. Benn: There will be no profits made by those who have acquired Rolls-Royce Motors as a result of this quotation. Hon. Gentlemen who talk about the resolution for no compensation should remind themselves that it was passed not only by the Labour Party conference but also by the TUC, which includes many unions not affiliated to the Labour Party. Concern to safeguard the public sector is widely felt by local government officers, by teachers and other unions not associated directly with us.
I now turn to the real issues which were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. To turn our minds to what is the essential question, how should Government and industry interact in areas where, without the taxpayer, private enterprise cannot function? The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) talked


about intervention by the Government being a wicked thing.

Mr. Pardoe: No.

Mr. Benn: Of course, that was what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Pardoe: No, I did not. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Mr. Benn: Without intervention by the Government, no advanced work would be done in our society. The question is, if private enterprise cannot do it, and Government and industry side by side or at arm's length run into these difficulties, how should it be organised?
I have some sympathy with the right hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, South, to whom I meant no personal malice. I would say to him that in my judgment, with the present policy of the Government, wholly different from what it was in 1970, Rolls-Royce would not have been bankrupt. Can anyone honestly believe that, after the money they have put into BSA and all these other companies, under a wholly different policy, if at this moment Rolls-Royce were to go bankrupt the Government would let it go? Of course they would not. The bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce is a monument to the folly of the cabinet.
When the RB211 was supported by the Labour Government, what did the Secretary of State for Social Services—then the industrial spokesman of the Conservative Party—say in a Conservative Central Office handout on 7th February 1970? He said:
Labour is doing no more for the RB211 than the Conservatives did for the Olympus and the Spey.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Benn: I have only a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of replying. The fact is that where Government and industry are as intimately concerned as this, public ownership is right. I accept the rebuke of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North that the last Labour Government did not do it. It was not in our programme in 1964. We did carry through the public ownership of the aircraft industry. We are now debating in the party what our policy should be about public ownership. We very much hope that when that debate comes to a

conclusion, my hon. Friend's views will be seen to have been taken on board.
I now come to the other question. For how long do the Government believe that working people are prepared to see the crude pursuit of profit while they lie under a statutory policy with their wages controlled and industrial action made illegal? When the hon. Member for Cornwall, North speaks about capitalism being decentralised and about the decentralisation of power, of course the plain truth is that 100 companies now produce 50 per cent. of our national output and that by 1985 they will produce 60 per cent. of our national output. Private enterprise, far from decentralising power, is concentrating it. The people of this country will soon have to learn that if they are not prepared to take command of those commanding heights, those commanding heights will take command of us.
The question that right hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side are always putting about who governs Britain— whether it is the trade unions or the Government—is the wrong question. The question is whether this country can preserve any kind of democratic freedom while the concentration of industrial power continues as it does. This is the question raised by the multi-national company, by Roche, by V and G, by IT and T and by the vulgar and cheap abuse of power on the Lonrho board, about which we shall be hearing a great deal more.
I raise another central issue with which the debate is concerned and which, candidly, reflects back on the policy of all Governments, including that of which I was privileged to be a member. For how long will workers be prepared to accept that the firms in which they work are transferred over their heads without any formal consultation? The Secretary of State quite rightly said that that happened under the Labour Government. It has also happened under the present Government.
The Companies Act still, in 1973, makes no provision for workers' interests to be considered as a legal duty of a receiver or the board of a company when there is a transfer of ownership. That is no longer acceptable. Whether right or wrong—right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may think it right; I think


it wrong—what matters is that it is acceptable no more. If there is a real lesson to be learned—I hope that it has been learned by Opposition as well as by Government politicians in the last three years—it is that this is not acceptable.
The importance of Upper Clyde was that a group of workers said, "We will not accept it." The miners would not acept another form of oppression by Government policy. The dockers would not accept unemployment due to con-tainerisation. Those workers fought back and changed public thinking on these matters. The hospital workers did the same.
This debate on Rolls-Royce will be remembered long after the immediate issue is forgotten, because it symbolises absolutely the policy of this Government, which is to make quick profits for their allies at public expense, to be absolutely silent about the worker shareholders, to squeak only when they think that their own investing friends may be affected, and to try to carry this through by a diversionary attack upon the policy of the Labour Party which is emerging and will be successful. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has changed so many times. He should not be too quick to criticise. There is not a single item in his election address, which I read this morning, which he would now dare to present publicly to the people of Worcester. If, at the time of the last election, he had told them what he has done since, he would not even be a Member of the House of Commons.
This debate has been well worth while. I strongly urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support our motion of censure.

6.44 p.m.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This debate has ranged over a wide number of matters. Until the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) replied, I thought that at least we would get away from the great harm that he hay done to the Rolls-Royce car company. But during his winding-up speech, he did a considerable disservice to the people employed by that company. He has said,

in a totally imprecise way—vague and damaging because of it—that no one who has bought shares in Rolls-Royce will make a profit out of them. I ask him to consider—because I am sure that he has not done so—the effect of that statement upon those who have now bought shares. Apparently, if they invest more money in that company, if they expand that company, if they sell more through that company, if the exports of that company go up, and if more jobs are created within that company, not a penny piece is to be made by the people who now own it. I want the people employed by that company to understand that if there is hesitancy—

Mr. George Thomas: Humbug!

Mr. Heseltine: I want the people employed by that company to understand that if there is hesitancy it is because the right hon. Gentleman has created it tonight—[Interruption.]

Mr. Benn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made two speeches.

Mr. Heseltine: The next line of attack is that my friends in the City will be put off by this debate. I wonder about the impact of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on employees who have invested their savings in buying shares in their company and have now been told that there is no possibility of profit for them as a result of this flotation.
I should like to deal with the point on which the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to give way to me when he spoke about the responsibility for this matter being in the hands of the members of the last management of the company. Without the slightest doubt, they bear responsibility. The point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make by quoting and praying in aid my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is that he—the right hon. Gentleman—was not involved in these matters; that in some way his responsibility was only for things which went well, and that the management of the company was responsible for things which went wrong.
The House will recall, no doubt as clearly as the right hon. Gentleman, his


speech on 23rd November 1970, in which he said:
The RB211 order was a product of cooperation between the company, my old Department and the civil servants working in it, the civil servants who worked as engineers and scientists in the research and development establishments, the British Ambassador and the Embassy in Washington, and the taxpayer who picked up the bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November 1970; Vol. 807, c. 38.]
For the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he was not involved in that matter is for him to miss the point of the whole area of responsibility for different matters.
One point that the whole House will welcome is that the right hon. Gentleman both opened and wound up this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Certainly his presence on both occasions has given a consistency to Opposition politics which has been lacking for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded in opening a debate which everyone knows is based entirely upon his error of judgment in making the statement that he did, and by throwing out 10 spurious challenges to the Government for the responsibility he claims that they bear. Let us look at some of the most important of those challenges.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had let down the suppliers. What would have happened if we had not moved in in the way we did to support the situation that had developed? The suppliers would have suffered to a vastly greater extent.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should have taken over the shares of Rolls-Royce. When that possibility was canvassed it was not certain that the RB211 project could go on—not for any reason to do with the company, but because it was late—and it was not certain that the Lockheed company could stand the extra delay that would follow. Nor was it certain that the airlines would not cancel their options for the airliner. If we had followed the right hon. Gentleman's proposal we could have bought all the shares and then found that the project was unable to proceed—and the British taxpayer would have been left with the responsibility for the cancellation charges and no project to save. That is the devastating answer to the question why we were not prepared to move forward with the acquisition of the whole shares of the company.
Perhaps we can now look at the second aspect of the debate. That deals with the very important aspect, which has concerned all of us who have dealt with this matter, of the question of the unemployment and the general level of employment in Rolls-Royce.
The House will not have missed the point that the motion explains that one of the main purposes of the criticism of the Government and, indeed, one of the alternative policies of the Labour Party, would be to
safeguard the jobs of those workers whose skills and dedication are its only real asset.
The way that the Labour Party intends to do this is to take into public ownership the shares of the aerospace and car sides of Rolls-Royce.
It is worth asking the question, in what way has public ownership ever protected the jobs of anyone in the industries to which it has been applied? Certainly it has never done so in any of the major nationalised industries, at any time since they have been nationalised. It certainly did not do so when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for those industries.

Mrs. Hart: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that had the Labour Government at the time not nationalised steel when they did and re-set the target for steel production, there would have been mass unemployment?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not want us to be diverted on to the steel industry. She will be aware of the massive injection of public support that we have given to the steel industry in recent announcements, on quite the most ambitious plans that that industry has ever had.
Let us deal specifically with the integrity of the claim based in the motion by hon. Members of the Opopsition.
The Opposition set up the Plowden Committee to report on the aerospace industry in order to consider this whole question. What we found was that the Plowden Report said:
We consider it vital that the Government should not do anything to maintain the industry at an artificially high level, and that following the defence review the industry should slim as much as is compatible with the future demand.


The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that the Government saw no case for supporting the industry at any particular size. The size of the industry, as the Plowden Committee said, had to depend upon the amount of work it succeeded in obtaining. So much for the general argument that we should support the industry in order to protect the jobs of the people concerned.
Then we can consider, perhaps, the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), after the cancellation of the TSR2 programme, in which he said:
Our aim now and in the longer term is to establish an orderly and articulated policy designed to move as rapidly as possible sufficient resources into improving our trade balance. In order to do both this and to achieve faster economic growth we must redeploy resources in a positive way. The decision to cancel the TSR2 is an earnest of this determination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1965. Vol. 710, c. 282.]

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is quite fair in quoting the Plowden Report and the speeches made, but the present prospects in the industry depend on the Marshall Report, which the hon. Gentleman has not even published. That is what is causing uncertainty to the workers.

Mr. Heseltine: The prospects of the industry depend on no report. They never have, and never will. They depend entirely upon the level of jobs available, the work flow available, the sales achieved and Government decisions.
It might be helpful, therefore, to consider the specific question whether the right hon. Gentleman, in talking about the jobs available for employees of Rolls-Royce at Derby, is able to give the impression that something happened under the present Government about which his party and, much more specifically, he himself, were not aware. The fact is—as his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) will tell him—that the rundown in jobs in Rolls-Royce had started long before the 1970 General Election. Between December 1969 and June 1970, when the right hon. Gentleman gave up responsibility, 3,000 jobs were lost in Rolls-Royce. Between June 1970 and March 1971 a

further 800 jobs were lost. That shows that there was a stabilisation of the position after the General Election, until the crash. After the crash, 5,000 jobs were lost. Let us be clear that the job losses in Rolls-Royce were known to the right hon. Gentleman. He set up the IRC report to look into the situation, and it had reported before the job losses started to take place. This was known to him. To my knowledge—the right hon. Gentleman may wish to deny it—no steps were taken by him to do anything about it. All the evidence is that he would not even have tried to do anything about it.

Mr. Benn: The steps taken to deal with Rolls-Royce unemployment were to authorise the RB211. Without that authorisation Rolls-Royce would have collapsed. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the RB211 engine was authorised because the whole future of Rolls-Royce depended on the development of that engine.

Mr. Heseltine: I was under the impression that the purpose of joining in the RB211 project was to keep this country in the forefront of aerospace technology. But the decision in respect of the RB211 was taken two years before that date. The point that the right hon. Gentleman is making is that in some way jobs should be automatically protected. When he had the chance to do something about it, he did nothing. He had every opportunity so to do.
I put one point to the right hon. Gentleman. I consider it to be important in this context. We have heard an immense amount about worker consultation. Everyone knows that what that means is that the right hon. Gentleman dreams up an idea and says, "This is what the workers want." But he never asks the workers. That is the one thing that never happens.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: in the event of a Labour Government being elected, will they consult the employees of the Rolls-Royce motor company before deciding whether to nationalise it, and if they do nationalise it, what form will that consultation take?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is having a lot of fun. But if the Labour Government are elected to power on a


platform of advancing public ownership, and if the Rolls-Royce motor company, which earned most of its assets out of the taxpayers' money, is brought into public ownership, that will have been explicitly approved.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand that where we have a clash between doctrine and consultation, doctrine will win. So much for all the Press quotations to the effect that the Government are not in the least bit interested in the working people of the company being taken over. They will suffer in exactly the way that the right hon. Gentleman has made clear.
This brings us to the nub of the debate —the issues upon which the debate is centred. It has nothing to do with the RB211, Rolls-Royce, or how this or that particular decision came about. It has nothing to do with that, except for one thing—which is that the right hon. Gentleman made a speech saying that the Labour Party would nationalise, without compensation, the shares in Rolls-Royce Motors—a speech calculated to do the maximum possible harm to the people who were likely to acquire those shares. The next day it became necessary for the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet to repudiate what he had said.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]
I thought that I heard a question from the benches behind me, "Where are they?" That is a devastating question Doubtless they are working out how to get round the next boob of the right hon. Gentleman's. That is a full-time occupation for anyone. The fact is that in the political interests of the Labour Party it was necessary to get the party off the hook. This debate is an attempt to do so. However, more hooks have been firmly secured than even the Shadow

Cabinet would have anticipated. The reality is—

Mr. William Molloy: When will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the matter seriously? It is not fun.

Mr. Heseltine: The harm has been done. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) says that it is not fun. He is right; it is not fun for those who work in this company. It is not fun for people in the private sector to listen to the endless and banal criticisms and the generalising in every small particular to which they are subjected by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
This country's trading position is now one of considerable optimism. The people responsible for that position deserve our support, as opposed to our endless criticism. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, brings particular qualities to his political activities. It could be claimed that he is the energy and the thrust of the RB211. That engine has been called the quietest engine in the world; what a tragedy that the right hon. Gentleman is not just as quiet.

Question put,
That this House severely censures the Government for its gross mishandling of its dealings with Rolls-Royce since the bankruptcy of the Company in 1971; and demands the acquisition at a fair valuation under the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act 1971 of all the assets of the company from the Receiver so that it can continue to make its full contribution to the national economy from within the public sector, and thus safeguard the jobs of those workers whose skills and dedication are its only real assets:—

The House divided: Ayes 227. Noes 269.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL BUILDING COSTS

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move
That this House regrets that the unprecedented increase in building costs and the refusal of the Government to allow an adequate general increase in the cost ceiling have resulted in both damaging deterioration in the standard of new schools and the postponement of starting dates for the construction of many education building projects; and calls upon the Government to announce an increase in the building cost ceiling which is sufficient to meet the needs of local education authorities.
This motion falls naturally into two parts. The first is a simple statement of the problems facing local education authorities over the past three years, problems which grew increasingly more severe during that time and which became intolerable during the second half of the last financial year. The problem is a combination of two factors. The first is the unprecedented escalation in the cost of new buildings. The second is the cost limits imposed on new school building by the Government.
Over the past two years the cost limits have been consistently outstripped by the increases in the real price of new construction. Between 4th April 1972 and today, no local education authority has been allowed to build, without specific permission from the Department of Education and Science, a primary school costing more than £296 per place, a middle school costing more than £423 per place or a secondary school costing more than £566 per place. The undisputed fact of the last 12 months is that schools of a quality which most local educational authorities would want to build have not been possible at that price. Very often schools above the minimum standards set by the DES or its predecessor as long ago as 1959 have not been possible at that price.
Let me give the House four examples from last year. The West Riding had to abandon the building of seven of its 39 proposed schools. The county of Durham found that on average the lowest tender it received last year was 40 per cent. above the DES cost limits. The city of Leeds hoped to build a school which, to keep within the cost ceiling,

should not have cost more than £320,000. The lowest tender received was for £450,000. In Birmingham the average tenders were £4 a place above the cost limit in 1970–71. By 1971–72 they were £25 per place above the cost limit.
As a result of that situation, which has been duplicated in each of the 20 local authorities with which I have been in contact over the past seven days, one of three things has happened. Some building has been postponed to dates which have yet to be determined. Often those postponed buildings have been removed from the building programme altogether and replaced by less elegant but less expensive items. Many more have had their starts delayed by the necessity either to renegotiate tenders or to argue with the Department about the need to pay above the normal ceiling.
By far the largest proportion have met the cost discrepancy in a different way: the quality of the building has been reduced so as to find a builder who would build the school at a price which the Department would authorise. Many local authorities which have told the Department of their cost difficulties have been advised by the Department to meet them by reducing the standards below those of their previous buildings.
Let me give an immediate example. The Haughton project in Darlington should have cost, according to the yardsticks, no more than £265,229. The lowest tender was £305,800. The Chief Education Officer of Darlington wrote to me to say that the building is now going ahead at a revised price of £283,320. His letter says that this was
a revised figure to which the DES agreed after we had undertaken to omit certain accommodation.
I hope that the right hon. Lady feels proud about presiding over a Department which gives that sort of advice to Darlington and many other education authorities. These are the hard facts, reported to the Secretary of State by the Association of Municipal Corporations as long ago as 8th February and repeated by the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees on 22nd April.
The point about building delay is frankly admitted by the Department. On 14th March the Association of Municipal Corporations wrote to the Department


referring to the February meeting and insisting that
an immediate announcement regarding an increase in cost limits is imperative".
The reply from the Department is deeply revealing. It begins by saying that
a very high proportion of projects in the 1972–73 building programme will have started ",
accepting by implication that some had not begun. That is the least significant clause of the letter. The letter adds the clause which says:
even if only at the tail end of the financial year ".
Let us examine for a moment what that phrase means. A project planned for 1972–73, which after weeks of negotiation with the Department was begun just before the financial year ended, may help to make the Department's answers to Questions look more respectable. In the real world it can represent a delay of anything up to 12 months. I offer a number of examples. I have said that the West Riding lost seven major building projects scheduled to begin last year. A further 32 had to be renegotiated after discussions with the Department. Each renegotiation took a considerable time, but each of these schools is regarded as being started in the appropriate year although the start to the building of each school was delayed.
The problem I have described in general in the West Riding is typified more dramatically by a letter received by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) from the Reverend Harry Lee, chairman of the managers of Bishop Ian Ramsay primary school. His letter reads:
I am afraid that after all the work that was put in, getting the DES to agree to the raising of the limit allowed for the new extension to £51,000, now that the tenders have come in the lowest is £69,934.
That £51,000 was a special price negotiated over a long period—almost two years—with Elizabeth House. Originally, the county of Durham tried to provide an extension to that school within the normal building ceiling. The current ceiling would have provided for that extension at a cost of no more than £43,000. At that price no builder would even contemplate the work. After long negotiations the DES agreed to go up to £51,000. That was still £19,000 below the present lowest tender. To get a builder prepared to

accept the job requires a 58 per cent. increase in the basic cost ceiling. Today, we have been offered a 22 per cent. increase in the basic cost ceiling, and the gloomy message that must go out to Durham from the House tonight is that Bishop Ian Ramsay school is still in desperate trouble and the extension does not look like getting built.

Mr. David Watkins: The facts are exactly as my hon. Friend has outlined them. If the extension had been agreed two years ago, by this time it could have been completed at a much lower cost than is likely now. The reason for the extension is that 100 new houses have been built in the village and there are today no places in the village school for the children from those houses.

Mr. Hattersley: It would not be possible to put the point with more dramatic effect. My gloomy comment on what my hon. Friend has said is that every local authority I have telephoned during the last 14 days—local authorities of every sort, size and political complexion—has been able to produce examples as gloomy as the one that has been drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend.
Faced with that intolerable situation, many local education authorities have been forced to act in a way which they know to be equally intolerable. They have cut building standards in the knowledge that that is the only way to get new schools built, but they have been equally well aware that by doing that they are pursuing a policy that is neither in the long-term interests of education in general nor in the interests of the ratepayers in particular.
Let me examine why that must be so. Minimum school building standards were set in 1959. Since then there has been one fundamental change. The measurement has been changed from feet to metres but, as most education authorities continue to do their business in feet and to communicate with Members of Parliament in feet, I propose to give my examples in the old, pre-European measurement.
For the next 10 years the 1959 building standards were virtually meaningless. Hardly any local education authority built schools other than appreciably


above the levels set by the 1959 standards. Since then, the Plowden, Halsey and other reports have expanded our ideas about what schools should do and what their buildings should provide. Inevitably, these new concepts have required more space and extra expenditure. These new concepts were not written into the minimum standards as almost every authority at least began to build schools which incorporated the new criteria.
The Bristol education authority put the point to me simply by saying:
the present minimum standards are out of date.
Until the beginning of this decade that hardly mattered, because most local education authorities were building appreciably above the minimum standard. In the last three years we have moved into a position of steady and remorseless decline. During that time, when standards should have improved, the opposite has been true. Birmingham is typical of that situation. I have a letter from Birmingham which says:
The difficulties we have encountered have been met by reducing standards.
I hope that the Secretary of State is proud of that letter, too. Proud of it or not, there is no doubt that she realises what is going on.
In Question No. 11 this afternoon, her hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) asked the Secretary of State:
 if … she is satisfied that standards of school building, particularly in relation to space and quality of materials, are being maintained.
The right hon. Lady ignored the Question. As the record will show tomorrow, answer came there none. Even in the absence of the hon. Member for Merton and Morden, let me remedy the omission, do her the courtesy denied by her right hon. Friend and tell her that we know that size and quality of materials have deteriorated in English and Welsh schools over the last three years. The decline in the size of school building is particularly severe.
In Liverpool the size of new schools has been cut from 40 sq. ft. per pupil to 35 sq. ft. New Bristol primary schools averaged 38 sq. ft. per pupil in 1968. Last year they averaged 33 sq. ft. Nottingham wants a minimum of 38 sq. ft. It

can afford now only 34 sq. ft. Nottingham wonders whether it is right to build schools of so small a size that they are inadequate educationally and of such low quality that they will cost more to maintain than Nottingham believes it reasonable to ask the ratepayers to provide in the next 15 or 20 years.
These are individual examples of a general condition. The Chief Education Officer of Leeds prepared a report for the Association of Municipal Corporations which went to the DES in February. The report describes itself as
clear evidence that a full review of the situation by the DES is overdue.
It showed a reduction in size of new building of 2 sq. ft. per pupil every year since 1969. This is the period of reduction of 2 sq. ft. per pupil which the right hon. Lady—just to prove that she has a sense of humour—has decided to call "A Framework for Expansion".
During that time the quality of school building has also deteriorated. Bristol in its letter said that it was faced with a choice between size and quality, so Barton Hill primary school will be cut to 33 sq. ft. per pupil but built to other acceptable standards. On the other hand, Green Bank infants' school will be kept at 36 sq. ft. per pupil but its standards will be modified and reduced to standards which the authority acknowledges to be inadequate.
In Leeds and Liverpool some internal walls have been left without plaster. In Leeds, softwood is being substituted wherever possible for hardwood. Durable floor tiles are no longer used in Sheffield. An authority which is anxious not to cause undue concern to its parents, but whose name I will gladly give the Secretary of State privately if she asks me for it, has now what it calls "third-rate breeze-block walls" within is schools. The ILEA reports difficulties with heating, the need to build in a way which restricts natural lighting and the need to build with low-quality materials. All this is bad for the children and for the teachers.

Mrs. Renée Short: Wolverhampton is not as lucky as are some authorities. Wolverhampton had had to reduce the square footage per child to 34 sq. ft. and has also had to make economies on finishes.


The architect has had to substitute felt roofs for asphalt and to economise on paint finishes, floor specifications and floor finishes. Because tenders are running at 30 per cent. above the Minister's cost yardstick, economies such as cutting out music departments and fencing car parks have had to be made, and in one secondary school the playing field has had to be abandoned. I am sure my hon. Friend will wish to indicate that that is an intolerable situation.

Mr. Hattersley: It is totally intolerable. I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us that the situation will become less intolerable in the next two years, but that did not seem to be the evidence of the announcement which was made this afternoon. The situation which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is bad both for children and for teachers. As the schools get older, the problem will get worse. Today's false economies will turn into early deterioration and new schools will become old prematurely. Perhaps most important, today's cheeseparing will produce huge maintenance costs and will produce schools which are appallingly below standards accepted as minimum in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties.
In the last year most authorities have had to behave with understanding reality and accept that building up to the adequate standard grows increasingly difficult. In consequence, education authorities have tried to meet the problem by building and designing schools to a lower quality than they would normally choose. The Department of Education and Science has developed a euphemism for the process—called cost planning—but even that limited aspiration has failed.
The Association of Municipal Corporations has provided figures showing that in 1969 57 per cent. of all building plans had to be altered during the construction work because of cost difficulties. By 1972, despite a conscious reduction of standards in the original designs, the figure had increased to 70 per cent. That was the indisputable situation which we faced before today.
I now turn to the second part of the motion and its demand for an adequate increase. Can we be told how the figure

of 22 per cent. was arrived at? I was told earlier today that it was the product of a study of the increase in prices in the building industry. It is certainly not a product of a study done by the people who have to pay for and maintain the buildings—the local education authorities. All their evidence, which local authorities provided for the Secretary of State as long ago as February, suggests an increase in the country of at least 40 per cent. which would do no more than maintain the reduced level of standards which the right hon. Lady is prepared to accept.
I can give some more examples of this. Durham local education authority told me last week in a letter:
In most cases lowest tenders received have been between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. over the cost limit and in some cases more than 40 per cent.
At the beginning of the year the city of Birmingham was explaining the need to increase the cost limits by a figure between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. Since then there have been six months of galloping inflation in the building trade. It looks as if the last six months were the most disastrously inflationary period that the building industry has ever faced.
The increase in general construction costs in the last quarter of 1972 was 18 per cent. over the last quarter of the previous year and was twice as great as the increase for the two previous years and four times as great as the average for the previous 10 years. That is the reason for the unprecedented rise in the cost of building. It enables the right hon. Lady to boast—which I think is an extraordinary word in the circumstances—that there has been the biggest increase in cost ceilings in history. I do not know whether to be astounded by the right hon. Lady's nerve or to sympathise with her desperation.
The increase is of such a size because the Government have presided over the worst building inflation in building history. The tragedy is that unfortunately the gap between building prices and the cost ceiling grows wider despite the right hon. Lady's announcement. She will find by the end of the week that no serious commentator on these matters will suggest that today's figure will meet the need. It will result in more delay and a


further reduction in standards, particularly in London and in other areas of high building costs, but to a large extent throughout the country as a whole.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend might add that the whole education framework of London is fast falling into chaos. We are ending up with an impossible situation. This relates not only to the question of building but to the fact that teachers cannot get a proper salary or proper allowances because the Secretary of State for Education believes that education does not really matter.

Mr. Hattersley: I have never yet made a speech in the House in which examples of the point I was making have been better put in contributions other than my own. I look forward to hearing examples from the Conservative benches of the fact that things were getting better.

Dame Irene Ward: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I was present last Friday in my constituency when we opened a sixth-form college which is absolutely magnificent, and we are all very delighted with it.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that we all share the pleasure of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). Nobody is suggesting that the Secretary of State has yet prohibited school building. We are just demonstrating that she has made it more expensive, more difficult and of a lower quality.
I turn to my final point. I end by asking the right hon. Lady a question. Despite the inadequacy of today's announcement, it is at least a concession of the extraordinary increase in general building costs. Can we be assured that her promised building programme, which in our view is inadequate, will be maintained? May we have the plainest indication from the right hon. Lady that the level of new building promised for the next five years in the Public Expenditure White Paper will be maintained in real terms—in terms of real school places and real schools? May we be assured that the public expenditure exercise now being carried out by the Treasury will not be worked out on the basis that building costs have risen so fast that the Depart-

ment of Education has to make its contribution by reducing public expenditure and in turn reducing the school building programme? We expect a precise answer to that question. We expect it because, if the school building programme is not to be maintained, what we have demonstrated to be the genuine crisis in school building will turn into absolute disaster.

7.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The motion moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) begins by regretting
the unprecedented increase in building costs.
That increase is one example—a worrying example—of the effects of inflation. But the House is aware of the determination of the Government to tackle inflation and of the steps that we have already taken to this end.
There have undoubtedly been very rapid rises in construction costs over the last year. The Government's White Paper on the operation of stage 2 of the counter-inflation programme made it clear that the Price and Pay Code was to apply to all construction contracts. In addition, the Government propose that a special construction panel should be established to consider how the requirements of the code could most effectively be applied to the construction industry taking account of the special features of the industry. The panel is to be set up by the two agencies—the Pay Board and the Price Commission—and I understand that they will be making an announcement in the very near future.
The motion goes on to allege that the Government have refused to allow an adequate general increase in the cost ceiling. Let me spell out a few facts about the increases. Cost limits for schools were increased in the spring of the last three years by the Labour Government by 10 per cent., in 1970, and by the present Government by 13 per cent. in 1971 and a further 15 per cent. in 1972. I have just announced a further increase of 22 per cent. for 1973—the largest single increase ever approved. This will bring the cumulative increase authorised by the Government since the beginning of 1971 to more than 58 per cent. I shall return later to the 22 per cent. increase I have just announced.
This really does not sound much like an obstinate refusal to adjust cost limits to take account of changing costs. but let us look a little further at the motion. The Government's supposed obstinacy and inflexibility are alleged to have had two consequences, "damaging deterioration in the standard of new schools" and "the postponement of many educational building projects". I will deal with these in turn.
First, the standard of new schools. I hope I may explain briefly how the system of cost control works, but before doing so I should say that this system was introduced in 1949 and has continued, by a process of evolutionary development, under Governments of different political complexions, to the present day. In the opinion of virtually all impartial observers the system has played an outstandingly important part in ensuring that we have had good value for the money spent on school building and have been successful in meeting very heavy demands for school accommodation since 1947. Governments of both major parties are entitled to a share in the credit for this, and I do not believe it can be in anyone's interest that the system should break down. What we have to do is to make adjustments to meet changing circumstances.
The system depends on establishing for each project in a major building programme a cost allowance, which must not be exceeded, and minimum accommodation requirements which must be met. The local education authority must provide the minimum accommodation required, but may also provide more, so long as the cost allowance is not exceeded. This gives the maximum of incentive to architects to exercise their professional skill to get the best value for money— and they have exercised it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has pointed out. In relation to schools, the minimum accommodation requirements are laid down in the statutory building regulations, and the cost allowance for a project is arrived at by multiplying the cost per place by the number of cost places, which may not be the same as the number of pupils in the school.
There are, therefore, two aspects to the question of standards—the area of accommodation provided and the quality

of materials and finishes. So far as schools are concerned, the teaching area required for any given number and age of pupils is laid down in statutory regulations—the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972, commonly referred to as the building regulations. These regulations also embody certain key requirements for non-teaching accommodation. There are, therefore, definite minimum legal accommodation requirements for schools. Major building projects require the approval of the Department and none is approved that does not satisfy these requirements.
What is true is that the margin by which local education authorities have been able to exceed the regulation requirements has been diminished by inflation. Let me take the average area per cost place in primary schools as an example. The legal minimum requirements for teaching and other areas together amount to about 32 sq. ft. per cost place. The national average figure is still some 4–5 sq. ft. above this. Building bulletins issued by my Department give advice as to how resources could be used to best advantage.
As far as existing primary schools of various kinds are concerned, of course, the declining school population is beginning to ease the space problem.
The building regulations, in addition to specifying accommodation standards, embody some structural and environmental requirements but they do not impose any detailed requirements as to the use of materials or finishes, so that those responsible for school building have a wide discretion. When things are easy they can, within the cost limits, use better finishes than at other times. Lately, as a result of inflation, they have had to cut back to some extent in these respects. But, the 22 per cent. increase in cost limits that I have just announced will put a new complexion on the matter. It means that the major schools programme for 1973–74—that is basic needs plus improvements for both primary and secondary —will be increased in value by £35·4 million to £196·7 million.
The minor works programme will be similarly increased from £22·4 million to £27·3 million. When we took office in 1970 the cost per place for primary schools stood at £227. It will now be increased to £361. The cost per place


in secondary schools stood at £435 and will now be £691. After allowing for site works, land, fees and equipment—none of which is included in the cost limits per place—the total costs of primary and secondary places is over £600 and £1,000 respectively under the new limits announced.
In school building as a whole, the net cost allowance for a 560-pupil primary school has risen from about £128,000 in June 1970 to £203,000, and a 1,200-pupil secondary school from £568,000 to £902,000. Again, the total costs, including land, fees and equipment would be about 50 per cent. greater than those figures.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is the right hon. Lady giving us the London figures?

Mrs. Thatcher: Cost limits do not vary from place to place.

Mr. Brown: What about the cost of building in London?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am giving the average figures. The second part of the motion refers to the postponement of
the starting dates for the construction of many education building projects.
The facts tell a different tale. It will be a few weeks before we get the final returns from the local authorities showing the state at the end of the building year, but the general picture is already clear. The great majority of projects in the building programme did start. For schools the figure is likely to be comfortably over 95 per cent. This result was brought about by close liaison between the Department and local authorities so that prompt and sympathetic consideration could be given to cost difficulties on particular projects.
In some cases alternative projects were brought forward for the 1973–74 programme in place of those which were held up. Where a project was held up it was not always because of cost difficulties. Sometimes it was a failure to complete local legal preliminaries in time, or because site negotiations had been delayed. Such matters were not connected with the cost limits. In assessing this achievement it is necessary to remember that this was the biggest school building programme ever, both in real terms and in money terms. There were more than

750 major primary projects in 1972–73, compared with 620 in 1970–71. There were more than 980 secondary projects, compared with 706 in the earlier year.
Moreover, these new projects had to be started at a time when local authorities had an unprecedented load of work in progress. This is illustrated not by the number of new starts but by the rising curve of completions. Completions of primary and secondary projects together increased from 786 in 1970–71 to 1,106 in 1971–72. The hon. Member for Spark-brook makes a number of strictures on our building record, but I must pass quickly over the record of the four Secretaries of State who held office from October 1964. Those were the years of the postponement of the raising of the school leaving age, the decline of the secondary improvement programme from Lord Boyle's £46 million in 1965–66 to almost nothing in 1970–72, and, in 1968, the cancellation of projects worth £85 million in order to get rid of a backlog.
The Government are tackling inflation both generally and in its specific application to the construction industry. In our period of office we have increased the cost limit by 58 per cent. We have started a record school building programme. We are providing the last stage of the buildings necessary for raising the school leaving age and we are carrying out the biggest programme ever for the renewal and replacement of old schools. On the basis of all these facts, I ask the House to reject this motion.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: The Secretary of State has dazzled us with figures and I should like to give her one simple figure of which I am sure she is unaware. Does she realise that timber prices will almost certainly rise by 50 per cent. in the current year? How does her figure of a 58 per cent. increase in cost yardsticks since 1971 match up to that?
My prophecy is that the 22 per cent. announced today will be eaten up by the rise in the cost of building materials and labour costs of the construction industry within six months. The Secretary of State puts on a gallant front, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatters-ley) said was a condemning indictment of


her relations with the local education authorities and with her "Big Brother" the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was an indictment of both in their relations with the building industry.
I am extremely disappointed that there is no one on the Government Front Bench from the Department of the Environment. Two Whips do not make up for a Secretary of State for the Environment when we are discussing this subject. Probably a large part of the right hon. Lady's problems are outside her control and lie with the Secretary of State for the Environment. He, or one of his representatives, should have been here. He should consult the right hon. Lady to make improvements in the structure of the building industry in its difficulties in coping with the central problem of tenders for schools and other public buildings.
The right hon. Lady made a lot of fuss about how the Government were controlling inflation. Let me tell her one of the reasons why tenders are not submitted for schools and why the situation has deteriorated so markedly. Her Government maintain two-year fixed price contracts for all public building. That is grossly unfair to a fair-minded builder. If a builder tries to calculate honestly what the costs are likely to be at the end of two years, he is likely to find himself at the end of his contract with a severe loss. If he is a rascal, the builder quotes a fantastic figure in the tender and, because other builders are not tendering for a great many public contracts, he gets the work and makes a large profit. That is typical of the Government's policy on inflation. The Government pick out those elements where they think they can score. They think that they have the builders in their grip by insisting on a two-year fixed price contract. In the same way they seek to bully the weakest kind of workers, like the hospital workers, whom they think they can control.
Will the Secretary of State as a result of the debate make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that negotiations are conducted with the leaders of the building industry to revise this basis of contract?
I can tell the right hon. Lady that she is getting erratic contracts and that local

authorities are sometimes being swindled and often are not getting contracts at all. There is a reference in the Building Trades Journal this week about Gates-head having to tender through the direct labour department, which the right hon. Lady's Government does not like, for 19 contracts in public buildings because there was not a single contract from a private contractor.
The Government bitterly criticise direct labour. One of my authorities, Shildon, which has an excellent record of direct building and does it cheaper than private builders and other local authorities, is forced by the Secretary of State for the Environment to go through all the business of tendering because of the Government's hostility to direct labour and, at the end of the day, having wasted the professional resources of a very small authority, the local authority has to do the jobs because private builders are not tendering.
Will the right hon. Lady make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment to renegotiate with the building industry this question of contracts? The AMC is pressing, rightly, for either a one-year contract or for a rising-cost contract. Something must be done about this in the interests of the industry, in the interests of the local authorities and in the interests of getting the school building programme running not at 95 per cent. but at 100 per cent. When the right hon. Lady tells us that she is pleased because she has a 95 per cent. build, she is really saying that she is satisfied with the administrative incompetence either of local authorities—I do not believe that for a moment—or of her Department.
This is not the only indictment of the Government in relation to getting tenders and buildings for schools and other education buildings. A marked lack of interest is shown by the Secretary of State for the Environment and by the right hon. Lady's own Department in those progressive elements of building in which at one time, when the other Secretary of State was Minister for Public Building and Works, there was a great interest. Lots of schemes that the right hon. Gentleman started in those days have gone by the board, now that he has a more elevated position and now that he


has more power for pressing on with what he started in those days.
Throughout the building industry, there is a lack of encouragement of progressive ideas by the Government, as well as these fundamental mistakes which are very damaging to the orderly development of the building industry and to the orderly building of our schools.
Another quotation from the Building Trades Journal tells of one part of the country where to large public contracts were put out almost adjacent to each other. One of the leading builders said that because there was no planning of big public contracts, there was not the labour or resources in the building industry in that area to do the job. The right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend want to look at that. There is an extreme shortage of building apprentices and building craftsmen and we ought to be told what she, on the educational side, and the other Secretary of State are doing about it.
This is tree planting year. No doubt the right hon. Lady is making a lot of encouragement for this activity. Does she know that the first thing architects take out of the school building plans are trees, playing fields, gardens and paths? These schools will have scruffy little paths instead of good concrete ones and the general amenity of schools, the finishes—the right hon. Lady admitted herself—will be cut in order to get the basic fabric. What we are being faced with is an uneconomic and disorderly organisation of the building industry caused by Government policy and the general effect of running down some of the best things that have been happening over the years in educational building.
A number of my relatives come from Canada and Australia and on occasions I take them round the country and show them things I think are good about England. They have said until recently, and they will say a different thing in the future, how good the British schools are and how much they have advanced in design. One of the things in which they take special pride and interest is the finishes in the schools and the general air of amenity that school architects have produced for the local education authorities and which until fairly recently, was one of our prides. I am sorry to see the

right hon. Lady so complacently defending a damnable situation.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: If we are talking about complacency, any complacency around lies in the Opposition motion, in putting detail before the major issue of the fight against inflation. I am not for a second arguing that these details, concerning the materials that go into buildings—in the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the expense, the difficulty and the quality—are not important details, but in this, as in so many other debates, we are kidding ourselves if we give the impression that the consequences of inflation fall only on the private purse and not equally on public expenditure.
One of the major anxieties about the inflationary conditions that we have faced over the last five years and more is that they have done increasing damage to the things that are wanted in public expenditure, no less than to people's private means. We cannot hope to solve this problem unless we recognise that in the short term the various fields of Government expenditure have to take some of the toll of this disease.
If, as in previous debates, Labour Members are arguing for the further expansion of the public sector, so much wider will be the consequences. Of course, it is painful to go slower than one would like towards agreed objectives, in education more than perhaps in any other field. However, the background against which we are considering this problem is simply that, first, we have had unprecedented increases in expenditure and a very wide welcome for the plans for the future which were announced in "A Framework for Expansion".
Second, despite the freeze, we have had the increase in the cost ceilings to which my right hon. Friend referred. Third, we have the prospect of improving conditions arising from a slightly diminishing school population, as the population figures change. Fourth, we have had—it has not been adequately taken into account in the controversies launched by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook— the special induction of funds for the raising of the school leaving age—a once-for-all amount.
There are, of course, difficulties in arriving at the methods of bringing one's


wanted commitments within the resources available. I share the view of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) that many local authorities are worried about the implications of the fixed price contract as operated today. It is time that we looked to see whether we could make some change here.
Of course, the Treasury would be anxious that this might open a door to increased costs which it could not control. I am not certain that that would necessarily be so. If the principle of fixed-price contracts were to be changed and there were, therefore, a greater opportunity for more competition for public authority programmes, there would be benefits to local authority expenditure in that way. Then there would be that much more pressure on Government to look at the inflationary possibilities for the future and take up their control of public expenditure in other ways.
I think that my right hon. Friend said that cost limits do not vary from place to place. That is part of the trouble, because building costs do vary from place to place. This is a point that Kent, a high cost area, has had to argue with too little effect time and time again, and it is something that should be looked at.
I urge Labour Members not to think that they can make speeches generally against inflation and then go on to say that, in particular details, they will have nothing to do with control of public expenditure when it suits their convenience to take that line. In other respects, I urge them and my hon. Friends to bear in mind that during the last three years we have both carried out and launched massive programmes of educational expansion. To say that we are depriving this service of the things it most needs does not accord with the facts.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) made a more acceptable speech than the Secretary of State. At least he said that we had to accept lower standards because of inflation. What shocked me about the Secretary of State's speech was that she did not admit at any time that there was a problem. So far as I could tell, she was more than satisfied with the progress being made. The avalanche of complaints that she has had

from local authorities are apparently to be dismissed out of hand. Apparently, reckless directors of education and chairmen of education committees of all political complexions are writing to the Secretary of State merely for the sake of writing, and have no genuine complaints.
Her speech was terribly complacent. The indictment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) horrified me. Of course, detail is important. It is no good talking about public expenditure on education if we have to admit that we are reducing standards in every school we build.
I want to deal mainly with the position in Durham and to give some practical examples of what is happening today— examples which, I am afraid, judging from her speech, will cut no ice with the right hon. Lady. In the replacement building programme, we are catering mainly for deprived and under-privileged children who need our special care and attention. If we are building smaller schools with fewer facilities, we are depriving them once again of the education that they should have.
Every day I hear from Conservative Members how well the country is doing, that we are better off than ever before, and have large resources. If so, we cannot do better than devote some of those resources to education.
The Director of Education for Durham —a servant of the local education authority—wrote to the right hon. Lady's Department about the special difficulties that the authority was having. He conceded that the Secretary of State was prepared to consider special problems which were arising for individual local education authorities. He said that Durham had received some help for some projects, and went on:
This help may enable us to build to rock-bottom specifications, but I do not think it invalidates the main point which I wanted to make, which is that, at present, we are having to build what I can only consider are sub-standard schools.
Those are the words of a director of education. It really is foolish—I use the word deliberately—for the Secretary of State to come to that Box and boast about 95 per cent. of the projects having been started. Any education authority, given the choice of postponing building


or going ahead with what it considers to be rather less than what it would want, would say that it must go ahead even if it means building what the Director of Education for Durham calls "a substandard school".
The Durham Education Authority is faced with a situation in which no tenders have been received from a long list of contractors for programme projects. I want to give the example of one school. It wanted to build a secondary school and it asked 14 firms to submit tenders. Of the 14, three submitted tenders. The highest tender was £188,137–70 per cent. —above the cost limit of £265,750. The lowest tender was a mere £122,628— 45 per cent.—above the cost limit.
Those are the percentages which should be seen in the context of the announcement made this afternoon. I ask the Under-Secretary to comment on the response by builders to this kind of contract and tell us what Durham is to do. It is all right to give figures about how well we are doing, but here is a committee anxious to provide an adequate school in an area that needs a new secondary school, and it is faced with this kind of problem. Instead of making the sort of political speech we have heard from the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary should deal with these facts properly.
In a letter to the Department on another occasion the director of education, protesting and telling the Secretary of State of the difficulties, said:
I am instructed by my Committee to point out to the Secretary of State that a number of the itemised savings on construction and finishes are considered by my Committee to be highly undesirable and have been made only because of the extreme financial problems encountered. One of the Department's own quantity surveyors who has assisted officers of the county council in the saving exercise has made similar observations.
This has nothing to do with politics. The facts are that authorities all over the country are finding it impossible to build adequate schools with the facilities they ought to have under the cost limits, and they will continue to do so despite the 22 per cent. It is no good the Secretary of State's saying that so many millions more are being spent, and that this represents so much more per school. I want somebody from the Government

Front Bench to deal with the problem of an authority that wants to have a school and cannot find a builder who will do the job within the cost limits laid down by the Department. That is what we are arguing about.

Mr. Ronald Brown: It is an interesting situation if, in this affluent society, builders will not tender to build council houses or schools, and are very reluctant to tender to build hospitals. One wonders how this affluent society is encouraging builders to build.

Mr. Armstrong: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising what I want to say.
I want the Treasury Bench to face the facts about educational building. This is a very serious matter. The buildings that are now going up will inevitably bring in their train advanced maintenance costs, and in 10 to 15 years' time the local authority will get the blame for allowing them to be built.
I say to the Minister that she has not only failed to deal with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook; she has evaded the whole issue.

8.14 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: As my right hon. Friend will know from the Parliamentary Question I put to her this afternoon, I too have been concerned about certain reductions in standards for schools, but I feel that the Opposition have made far too much of a meal of this and have paid no tribute whatever to the raising of the limits by 22 per cent. announced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. I repeat the welcome I then gave to that announcement. It is welcome indeed, and I hope all hon. Members on this side of the House share that approval.
It is important to get matters into perspective. We have already been told by my right hon. Friend that none of the approvals so far given has fallen below the minimum building regulations. When the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) quotes a director of education as saying that schools are substandard, one wonders what is meant by that term. Does it mean that they fall below these minimum building regulations, because in that case


there is a clear discrepancy between the point made by my right hon. Friend and the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Or does it simply mean that the standard of the school is not quite what that director of education would wish in ideal circumstances?
I think, too, that one should remember that there has been the yearly uprating. I had not myself realised by how much, and it is good to be reminded that it is now by over 58 per cent. since we came into office.
Again, I am surprised that more than one Labour Member should sneer at the fact that over 95 per cent. of the building projects approved have gone forward. I was in local authorities long enough to know that there were all kinds of reasons why there was a hitch in a programme, probably having nothing at all to do with costs: something happens with regard to the site, people cannot get the plans through on time—all kinds of reasons which would account for this. It seems to me that a figure of over 95 per cent. is a pretty good record.
I have quite a long memory and before I came to this House I was the chairman of a local education authority. I can recall the difficulties that we experienced under the previous Labour administration, and I find it particularly hard to stomach the strictures that we now receive from Labour Members in the light of their own record when they had the opportunity to do something about it. It is always easy to say "You should do this. You should do that. Why do you not do more? Why do you not raise the limits to this or that level?" But what did they do when they were in office? I can recall that we had cuts, we had struggles to work within the cost limits then involved. Worst of all, we did not even get the schools we wanted into a school building programme. I can remember one notorious case of a very old Victorian primary school of the kind on which my right hon. Friend has rightly made war. That project went up for approval to the Department of Education and Science every year, and every year it came back marked "Not this year." At long last this has got off the ground, and it sticks in the throat when we hear these criticisms from the Opposition.
Had the previous administration embarked on the kind of building programme that we now have, we should not be needing to build so many schools as we now have to build.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. John Forrester: The hon. Lady the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) chastises my right hon. and hon. Friends for not granting every school building request that was put up to the Department when we were in power. I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that every programme that is put up to the present Minister by local education authorities is granted 100 per cent. If that were so, there would be a very big building programme in my constituency.
Quite obviously, the rapid increase in the cost of school building has faced local authorities with what is probably their greatest crisis in living memory. With this enormous increase in costs, local authorities will be faced with the choice of doing half a job well or a whole job very badly, unless the right hon. Lady and the Chancellor of the Exchequer increase the cost ceiling rather more than she has announced today.
I give two illustrations from Stoke-on-Trent of the crisis facing local authorities. The first is that of a Church of England school in the city. The project was supposed to cost £170,000, according to the Department's cost ceiling. The lowest tender was £70,000 higher. That is 44 per cent., double the 22 per cent increase which the right hon. Lady has announced. A deputation to the Department resulted in permission being given to spend another 15 per cent. on the project, or about £26,000. But that is still £50,000 short of the real cost of the building.
In order to build a school at that price, a classroom has had to be cut out and the proposed art room has had to be converted to take its place. The building is on a rather difficult site. In order to make more savings, the landscaping has had to be seriously curtailed and specifications for the roads have been altered. There is to be one pavement instead of two.
Another problem facing architects and builders is that of using inferior materials in the fabric of buildings—a


very short-sighted policy because it will lead to higher maintenance costs and almost certainly to schools having to be rebuilt at a much earlier date than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Idris Owen: What does the hon. Gentleman consider to be inferior materials?

Mr. Forrester: The finishes on the walls of building, for example. I have discussed this aspect with architects in Stoke and they are seriously concerned that they will have to use short-life materials which will need replacing very quickly. Decoration will need to be done at more frequent intervals than in the past.
Another danger in the skimping of building is that local authorities may be tempted to put in minor projects in order to complete buildings they are not able to complete now. This will take money away from other schools on which it could and should have been spent rather than going on new schools which have just been built. This is false economy because we all know that additions or alterations to buildings cost considerably more than if the necessary work had been done in the first place.
The other example from Stoke is that of an extension to our sixth-form college. Modifications had to be made to the original plan. This enabled our city works department to tender some £243,000 for the work in hand. The lowest private enterprise tender was £310,000—a difference of £67,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned the attitude of the Opposition to direct works. One knows that when builders know that a direct works department is tendering they are a little more careful in their pricing than they otherwise would be. But still the direct works tender is 45 per cent. or more above the figure sanctioned by the Department for the extension to the college. If it had not been for our very good works department, we would have had to go cap in hand to the Department again, asking for an increased cost limit.
Stoke is not an area with a very high fancy cost-of-living index, but all the evidence suggests that there must be an

increase of from 40 to 50 per cent. in the Department's yardstick if present standards are to be maintained. Indeed, many would say that the standards at the moment are not as good as they should be, as my hon. Friend also said.
Not only the Department but shortage of materials such as timber and steel is creating problems, so that builders will not undertake to complete their contracts in the time they would have done previously. Yet this is an area in which a steelworks is to close, and one can only wonder at the policy of the Government towards steel when the steel industry is having to give delivery dates six and nine months ahead.
I spent most of my teaching career in primary schools when money was being spent on secondary schools, often, I thought, in order to improve the buildings and to create salary differentials. This embittered people in primary schools. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), as Secretary of State, proclaimed the new deal for primary schools, we thought that a new dawn was breaking. But the primary staffs had been the cinderellas of education for so long that they looked for snags because they could not believe that it was going to be so. The right hon. Lady stopped the supply of free school milk. It was not very popular but she defended it on the ground that the money saved would go on building. Now it looks as though inflation will destroy the dreams we had that steps would now be taken to rectify the situation.
At the top of the list at Stoke—I suppose, really, that they are at the bottom in practical terms—are 10 middle and infant schools which need replacing by reason of age or being substandard in their facilities. Seven of them are in my constituency. Included in this depressing picture is a Roman Catholic school which is second on the list for replacement. I have no illusion that these schools will be replaced in the next decade, but I would not like to think that they would be replaced by second-class schools whose buildings have been skimped but would still have to last for another 60 years.
It is clear that the whole programme of new school building, modernisation and


improvement is in the melting pot. While the increase of 22 per cent. in the ceiling is welcome, the right hon. Lady knows that, in order to meet present standards, at least a 50 per cent. increase is essential, with an annual increase to go with it, and that the global sum, if the programme is to be maintained as it is, will have to be increased by a similar percentage.
I fear that over the heads of all of us hangs the Chancellor's sword. It has been confidently predicted that it will fall in the autumn. I am afraid that the golden age of primary school rejuvenation will prove to be just a dream which has passed us by—unless the right hon. Lady can salvage more from the ashes than she has done so far.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) spoke for a great many hon. Members when he implied that it would be tragic if our ideals were defeated by inflation. That is the crux of this debate.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his colleagues have chosen another Supply Day for a half-day debate on education. I might wish that he did not plunge us into quite so many costs and statistics, however. We looked forward to hearing a little more of his education philosophy. There is a danger that it may be described like the economic philosophy of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition many years ago—as being that of a billiards marker. The hon. Gentleman's concentration on tiny figures misses the broad themes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) pointed out.
It may be that this debate is slightly misconceived and that it should be taking place on the construction industry. Many of the points which have been made relate to most forms of building and not just to educational building. There is a fantastic load on the construction industry. Everyone knows this, whether he is trying to build a house, a hospital or, indeed, a new cowshed. The difficulty is that the increase in tendered prices varies considerably in different parts of the country. I do not know why. I accept that the alleged additional

costs in the North appear far to outrun 22 per cent. However, from my own inquiries in Norfolk I am assured that we can manage on 22 per cent. with our educational programme. It is not that we have not a very heavy load on our local industry. We have.
The problem of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be how to strike the right increase in these education cost limits. If it is pitched too high, into educational building will be pulled an almost disproportionate part of the building efforts, and building prices and tenders will be jacked up still more. Therefore, one of the most important points made by my right hon. Friend is her reference to the setting up of a construction industry panel under the Pay Board. If building costs cannot be moderated we shall be caught in an ever-increasing spiral.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to attack the existence of building cost limits, but surely over the years they have fulfilled a very important and worthwhile function. I can remember a time, some 20 years ago, when the costs of school places remained stable despite the inflation of those years, because consistently better design by architects got better use out of a given superficial area. It may be that the decline in the amount of space allotted to children in primary schools in recent years is not all due to a need for economy. Undoubtedly, some of it will come from the more open plans which have been preferred. Lest people believe that building design for schools is deteriorating, let me confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). People abroad look to British school design with approval and for inspiration.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook complained that many contracts were being cancelled—but not everywhere, and the answer is in this 95 per cent. of projects undertaken successfully within the time. Looking back, let us bear in mind that the present difficulties and any cuts in programmes intended for the year which local education authorities may have to make are as nothing compared with the enormous cut resulting from the cancellation of the backlog in 1968. That was done under cover of a change of system, but over £80 million school


building, actually authorised, was cut at a stroke.
With us the momentum is continuing. It is more than continuing; it is accelerating so quickly that this may be part of our difficulty. After all, taking the major products put forward, as the Secretary of State said—750 major primary and 980 secondary projects in the current year— that is a total of over 1,700. In the 20 years after the Education Act 1944 we were averaging from 400 to 500 new schools a year. I am not suggesting that all these projects are the equivalent of a new school, but school building is now of a different order of magnitude.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that it should come under the kind of pressure at the edges that members have spoken about. The question is, when one mentions this rather emotive term, substandard, what exactly is meant by it. It may well be that in order to provide as many new schools as possible in the short term, some departure from one's ideal standard and finish may be a necessary choice. There is always the difficulty that in any constituency, in any educational area, in any city, it is the lucky children who are going to the new school. The children who are still in old schools are disappointed.
Therefore, is the right policy to try and maximise the number of schools that are built, even if in the short term some economies have to be made? I think that the right policy is to build the maximum number of schools that can be tackled, but as part of the design let us build in some economies which can be remedied later when the pressures are less and the numbers are fewer. This can be done.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point in suggesting that this costs more than it would if all done at once. In any individual case, yes, but not in the totality. That is better than having to knock out projects that are needed.
In the end it is a question—as are all these educational economic debates—of priorities and balancing resources. On all these cost limits, the increases were not just calculated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We all know they had to be argued for and approved by the Treasury. Such is the pressure on our resources that it takes

a strong Minister to expand the programme of his or her Department in the light of the present pressures upon Government expenditure.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Department of Education and Science wanted more than 22 per cent. because it thought that was not enough?

Mr. Hill: I am not suggesting anything. It is not for me to say how negotiations between Ministers and the Treasury take place. The hon. Member can make his own guess. I have already told the hon. Member that we can manage in Norfolk on 22 per cent., and are grateful for it.
The fact is that my right hon. Friend has done extremely well in getting Treasury support for her projects. The important thing is to keep a balance. We have got the expansion of nursery education under way. Today, my right hon. Friend announced adjustments upwards to student grants and the parental threshold. Now we have increased building cost limits. I want resources to be left for some of the other projects in the educational programme. I am hoping —perhaps I can mention it in a breath— that some resources will be available to take action upon the Russell Report on Adult Education.
These matters can be considered only if the other parts of the educational programme are subject to a rigorous and hurtful downward pressure on costs and prices. It takes time to decide what cost limit may be appropriate, because the evidence coming in from different parts of the country is so varied.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase that she has been able to make, because it will enable the LEAs to do their job.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I feel that this evening we are discussing another stage of the campaign that inner London Members have waged in this House over many months following the deplorable cut-back that the Minister forced the Inner London Education Authority to make on its minor works programmes.
Tonight we are discussing the new cost limits on new buildings. ILEA is not only the largest education authority in the country but has the largest number of old school buildings within its area. That is why an urgent review of the cost limits is so important.
Many hon. Members have rightly pointed out the inflationary problems facing this country. Certainly everyone's daily life is affected by inflation, but we hope that it will be controlled. We are promised by the Government, especially by the Prime Minister, that inflation is now very much under control. We wish the right hon. Gentleman success. But unless there is a constant review of cost limits on, for example, school buildings, not only the immediate problem but other problems will continue for generations to come.
We do not build schools on the basis of a life of 20 or 40 years. Indeed, in the London area many schools which are still being used were built 70 or 80 years ago. Structurally they are sound enough, but regrettably they lack many of the modern amenities that we expect in a modern education programme. Tragically this is what will happen with our new schools unless the Minister gives further consideration to the problem.
We have heard a great deal about builders, but we have not heard very much about one problem currently facing the ILEA. I have a letter of 11th May from a senior officer of the ILEA in which he refers to the problems facing that authority. He says that it is difficult to find builders who will tender because of the cost limitations. This will be the problem.
I should like to mention two schools in the London borough of Wandsworth. The first is the John Burns primary school. The cost limit on that school is £248,000, but the programme cost on tender finally agreed is £285,000—a difference of over £37,000. Even taking into account the 22 per cent. increase that the Minister announced today, there will still be a difference of over £30,000.
The second school is the Balham boys' secondary. The cost limit is £791,000, but the programme cost agreed on tender is £960,000—a difference of £169,000. Again, taking into account the increased costs

that the Minister has announced today, this will still leave a difference of £130,000.
These are the kind of problems which we in inner London have to face. I ask the Minister to think again and to enter into negotiations with ILEA's officials on this point. Otherwise, as has been pointed out by many of my hon. Friends, we shall get badly designed schools which will affect both teachers and pupils.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House surely wish to see within schools decent staff rooms. The Secretary of State must have visited schools at which she has been appalled at the kind of staff rooms which exist. We surely want isolation, as far as possible, for the area within a school where dinners are prepared. Again, the Secretary of State must have heard the intolerable noise which teachers and pupils have to bear while dinners are being prepared. We surely wish that decent libraries should be provided in schools where there is a basic need because of the unfortunate home life of some youngsters who have no books in their homes and are not encouraged to read. It is only by attending a school which has a decent library and teachers who want to stimulate interest that such children will benefit.
But these things will be cut back. With great respect to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), who said that we can make these changes later, I suggest that he is wrong. We cannot do that. My constituency contains many old schools, as do the constituencies of other hon. Members, at which the parent/teacher associations say "We do not basically believe that it should be our responsibility to spend our money on improving school facilities". I am not against parent/teacher associations. If they organise functions whereby they will have school visits and improved sports facilities, this is to be welcomed. However, I strongly condemn the position in my constituency— and this sort of thing applies in many other constituencies in London—in which the PTAs organise functions at a school so that sinks can be installed in classrooms. This has presented appalling problems to one school. One finds that at a later date, when one has more money, this is not something of which one can


say "There are certain things which we should now do in this school".
Within our constituencies many of us must have large housing estates which lack playing facilities for youngsters and community halls for residents because when they were being constructed there was a limitation on the amount of money available. Someone then said "At a later date, when we have more money, we shall make this possible". This is impossible. Here we have all the examples of penny-pinching in our new schools and the problem this will cause.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In my constituency we have the situation mentioned by my hon. Friend in respect of libraries. The Acton Wells primary school has a library, but if the Secretary of State approves—she has already said so in correspondence with me—and if the school takes more pupils, the library will have to go as a result of the present regulations.

Mr. Cox: Many of my hon. Friends could make that point. This is what will happen from the cost limits which the Secretary of State is forcing upon local authorities.
I often disagree with the Secretary of State, but I do not disbelieve that her intention is to see a rapid advance in standards of education. We may differ as to the goals and how the right hon. Lady is attempting to do this. But what she is doing by the limitations affects the key essentials that determine the attitude of staff and children within a school. Youngsters are not stupid. At whatever age they may be they soon realise it if a school has no facilities. They then soon lose interest in attending the school and taking part in its day-to-day activities.
Many hon. Members have spoken about expenditure. I do not doubt that money is a difficulty and that there must be some control on the expenditure which any Government can undertake. But what deeply concerns me, as it concerns millions of parents, is that on certain projects there does not seem to be any difficulty in the allocation of money.

Mr. Spearing: Maplin.

Mr. Cox: Maplin is a classic example. There has been no question about the

money for Maplin. I served on the Committee which heard the objectors of Kent and Essex. We were told of a financial allocation of about £2,000 million for the development of the Maplin airport. There was no question about where that money was coming from. That, in the eyes of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and in the eyes of almost everyone throughout the country, is something that cannot be understood. I hope that the right hon. Lady will have the courage to say "I have still a considerable fight on my hands in the Cabinet because I believe that the more money I can get for the benefit of schools, the better." That will be warmly supported not only by her supporters but by the country generally.
I beg of the right hon. Lady to stop using the argument which she repeatedly uses in this House about inner London— namely, the fall in school rolls which makes it unnecessary to spend so much money on London. If the need exists— and certainly London can prove that it does—it does not matter what the school rolls are if the amenities are substandard. If that is the position, the money should be allocated. I hope that the right hon. Lady will have the courage to say "It will cost money, but I shall continue fighting". If she takes that attitude, not only will she have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends but at the end of the day she will be able to call upon the people to pay the cost—namely the taxpayers, who in many cases are the parents of the children who go to the schools such as we are discussing this evening.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: As Anthony said as he walked into Cleopatra's tent, "I did not come here to make a speech". I had no intention of speaking tonight, but, having listened to some of the appalling contributions from the Opposition, I felt that something should be said.
For sheer effrontery, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) takes some beating. Any stranger—or anybody who had been out of this country for some years—who listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech would have thought that when his Government were in power the school building programme had been given high priority.
I can remember the days in 1967, when the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power, when we had the devaluation of the £. I can remember the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, telling the House that devaluation would not have the serious consequences that a lot of people were envisaging.

Mr. Ronald Brown: We are floating now.

Mr. Montgomery: The right hon. Gentleman assured us that the school building programme would continue to expand in accordance with the priorities that his Government had laid down. In fact, the major school building programme for 1968–69 amounted to only £92 million, compared with £101 million in 1967–68. In other words, there was a serious cutback. Nobody can tell me that we did not have inflation in 1967–68.
That cuts still further into the effectiveness of the money that the Labour Government were at that time prepared to spend on school building. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) was right when he said that this debate centres on inflation, and how it will be combated. My hon. Friend was absolutely correct when he said that the public sector and the private sector are equally affected in the battle against inflation.
I am sorry to have to keep bringing up so much of the past, but in 1967— again because of devaluation—the then Labour Government postponed the raising of the school leaving age. It was put off in order to save public expenditure. Only one man in the Labour Government had the courage to resign because of that action—the Earl of Longford. Not one squeak came from the majority of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition benches about the postponement of the raising of the school leaving age.

Mr. Marks: Not true.

Mr. Montgomery: All right—there may have been some very mild squeaks, but only one Opposition Member had the courage to resign on what the Opposition regarded as a matter of principle. I see that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) smiles. I have no

doubt that she felt passionately about the matter.

Miss Joan Lestor: She spoke very passionately, too.

Mr. Montgomery: But that did not seem to have very much effect.
After listening to the speeches tonight I can only accuse Labour Members of sheer hypocrisy. The school building programme in 1968–69 amounted to only £92 million. In 1972–73 it had risen to £273 million. My right hon. Friend is the best Secretary of State for Education and Science that we have had for a long time. In Cabinet she has fought far harder for money for educational expansion than has any right hon. Gentleman who held the post in the Labour Government. They sold the pass. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook knows that that is true.
My right hon. Friend has produced a White Paper: "Framework for Expansion" which provides for a massive and continuing all-round expansion in education. It is the first time in 30 years that any Government have set out long-term plans in this way. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for that. She stressed that the Government are determined to tackle the evil of inflation. Every scheme involving public expenditure must be examined in this battle against inflation.

Mr. Ronald Brown: That is not what was said in 1967.

Mr. Montgomery: If I were the hon. Member I would not persist in referring to 1967, because that was not the brightest year in the history of the Labour Party. The Opposition have chosen the wrong subject, the wrong speakers and the wrong night. My right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] was devastating when she—[Interruption.] showed that over the last three years—if the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt I will give way.

Mr. Brown: I said that we now have the tail end of the donkey.

Mr. Montgomery: I will work that out later.
My right hon. Friend was devastating when she showed that over the last three years cost limits for schools have been substantially increased. Today's increase


of 22 per cent. is the largest single increase ever approved, and must certainly have a beneficial effect on the school building programme. Of course, I want to see superb school buildings, and schools with marvellous amenities and facilities—

Mr. Brown: But—

Mr. Montgomery: But I believe that the quality of teaching is more important. If we could have everything together no one would be happier than I but I would rather have my child taught in an inferior building by a first-class teacher than by an indifferent teacher in some gin palace of a building.
I went to school on Tyneside—

Mr. Brown: I am talking about London.

Mr. Montgomery: I was not born in London, and if the hon. Gentleman is an example of people born in London, I thank God that I was not. I went to an elementary school on Tyneside. There were no playgrounds, so we played in the street. It was a school which in those days, and certainly today, would be classified as a slum school. But it was a good school, a happy school. That was because we had devoted teachers who cared passionately about the children in their charge.
We did not have marvellous facilities and wonderful amenities, but we received a very good education. That is why I say that the Labour Party has got its priorities wrong. Instead of trying to make cheap political capital, and not very successfully at that, hon. Members should be speaking about the quality of education, because that is what is important. I hope that tonight the House will reject this hypocritical motion by a large majority.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) said that he did not come in to make a speech. He made that increasingly obvious as he went on.
The reply to the Secretary of State's rejection of the motion has come from hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches who used phrases such as "departure from standards may be neces-

sary" and "we would rather have our children taught by good teachers in inferior schools". Those remarks are typical of the speeches we have heard from Government backbenchers.
Building cost limits apply to certain public buildings—not to private buildings —and schools are among those public buildings. In the past, schools have been built well above the minimum standards, but we are getting closer and closer to the minimum laid down 14 years ago.
The Secretary of State was asked how the 22 per cent. increase which she has announced today was decided. She was asked whether it was based on the index of construction costs. If so, on what period of the index was it based? Will the 22 per cent. increase cover the increase in building costs over the year? Builders have been present during the debate. I wonder whether they will tell us that building costs for schools and houses have risen only by 22 per cent.
This is not a new problem. Going back through HANSARD one sees attacks on Governments of both political colours for delay in bringing in increases. The lag between planning and building and the time when the increases are agreed causes serious problems for local authorities, but inflation this year and last year has vastly increased the problem. With inflation of this kind, the system breaks down. That is what has happened with school building, as with the rate support grant and a host of other matters for which public expenditure is needed.
At one time, a three-year wait meant that at the end of the period only a 10 per cent. increase was needed, but now, after a 13-month wait, an increase of at least 22 per cent. is needed. We should not only be asking ourselves whether today's increase is enough—I do not think it is—or whether it has come soon enough. I do not think it has. These are important questions, but the question we have to ask is whether the building cost limit system—which I think has operated since 1951 but which the Secretary of State says has operated since 1949—is good enough now to cope with the job. Should we not have a more flexible system, as does the Department of the Environment with the housing yardstick?
In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the former Secretary of State for the


Environment said that there would be flexibility and that places like London would not be subjected to the same limits as other places. In my constituency, Denton—one of the urban district councils—had yardstick approval for a housing scheme costing £226,000. The lowest tender—which was received within a few months—was £291,000, an increase of 29 per cent. But Denton is building its houses, and the builder is getting £291,000 because the regional controller in the North West has power to approve that increase in the yardstick. If that can happen under the Department of the Environment, it should happen with education, which is just as important.
Have alternatives to the yardstick been considered? Local education authorities face tremendous difficulties with their building. Those difficulties will not end today because a 22 per cent. increase has been announced. In a report to Manchester Education Committee, the chief officer said:
The increased allowances made by the Department of Education and Science do not keep pace with the rate of increase in building costs. For very short periods after the increases are granted, there is some slight easing of the difficulties, but by the time the next tenders are received enhanced building costs have overtaken this temporary easement. Standards of materials and construction have been minimal for some time and, as there is no scope for a reduction in quality, a reduction of area remains the only method of obtaining tenders within cost limits. There is ample evidence that many other authorities are in the same dilemma.
Manchester does not have the same troubles as do other authorities because it has a large direct works department and it has no worries about advertising to umpteen firms for tenders and getting none back. Manchester can at least get the job done. If teaching space is to be maintained even at the minimum, other space has to be sacrificed An authority in Manchester, which regards the 32 sq. ft. minimum under the regulations as wholly inadequate, is forced to reduce the circulation space and other accommodation space. Hall areas have been reduced and assembly halls have become passages. In the first school in which I taught, all the classrooms were arranged off the hall and I thought how quaint this was.
I spoke to the headmaster of a school from Manchester. He is shortly to move into a new building which has been

awaited for a long time. This headmaster tells me that his present school was built in 1892 yet has more facilities than the new building into which he will be moving. It has 10 teaching spaces and a hall. Ten teaching spaces were planned for the new building but, because of the problem caused by the failure to increase the cost limits, they are being reduced to nine. The new building has what is called a project dining area, which is 15 ft. wide and is used, when meals are not being prepared or cleared away, for craft work. The school which was built in 1892 has a library, but there is no library in the new school, despite the fact that the local education authority has taken the lead in a system of direct works and has used the CLASP building consortia for reducing costs.
In the 1950s the Conservative Government aimed to build 300,000 houses. They did this and the standard of the houses which were built was deplorable. They were called people's houses. There are some of these houses in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). I can see them across my constituency border, and he is welcome to them. Now, in 1973, the Secretary of State boasts about a greatly increased school building programme. Judging from what the right hon. Lady and her supporters have said, these schools will be of the same standard as the people's houses were in 1953. These schools will be the people's schools.

9.08 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who always presents a very reasoned argument, even though one does not agree with all of it. Although I went some way with a number of his arguments, I regret that there are others with which I disagree totally.
Whatever criticism the Opposition care to direct at the Government, it would be wrong for them to direct criticism at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has been an outstanding success in her post. She has rightly placed tremendous emphasis on primary education and has shown a further priority for polytechnics, which I throughly endorse, and in the White Paper she has recently announced her deep commitment for


nursery education, which I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides.
Prior to coming into the Chamber I had no intention of speaking in the debate, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and to my right hon. Friend for not hearing the opening speeches. But I became very interested upon hearing the contributions from the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and from my hon. Friends. I intervene in the debate because for a number of years, like other hon. Members, I served in local government and was deeply involved in all sectors of education, which is a local government responsibility.
I was interested in the arguments advanced by several Labour Members about the difficulty of getting builders to tender on educational projects. I tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that to deny that a problem exists is nonsense, because obviously a problem does exist.
I believe that the Government could help in some directions, perhaps by legislating to enable local authorities to have a rise-and-fall clause in contracts into which they enter with builders, and also to enable local authorities to reflect such a rise in building costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) talked about the quality of teaching. I agree that that is a vital matter. It is a fact that even today some of our best results in education come from schools whose facilities many of us would regard as being substandaid. I would point out to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that what is more important than the planting of a tree in tree planting year or the laying down of flower beds is the provision of teachers who go for good results in our schools.

Mr. Boyden: What is happening in some of the building contracts has nothing to do with trees or plants but involves the importation of inferior copper piping which is coming into the country under a British Standard because it is cheaper. It is being used in schools, and a time will come when the whole job will have to be done again at three times the original cost.

Mr. Winterton: I concede that in some schools there is substandard work, and this is regrettable. I hope that local authorities, assisted by my right hon. Friend, will do their utmost to ensure that this does not occur. In recent years the standard of facilities that we expect in our schools has gone up dramatically.

Mr. Spearing: It has gone down.

Mr. Winterton: No; the standard which we expect to be incorporated in our schools has gone up dramatically, not just in classrooms, but in terms of sports halls and gymnasia. We want to see more sports halls and swimming pools, sixth-form accommodation substantially improved, and staff accommodation with easy chairs and carpets on the floor. All this costs money.
We cannot have everything we want at one go. Many schools, particularly the larger ones, can provide within the cost limits a swimming pool instead of a second gymnasium. I encourage this because I believe that a swimming pool is a vital necessity. I should like to see this sort of activity encouraged by more authorities. We do not expect just the planting of more grass playing fields, but we press for all-weather pitches which are expensive to provide. All these have to be reflected in the cost limit. My right hon. Friend has brought forward the 22 per cent. increase a little late, but she has done so and it is a dramatic and considerable increase.

Mr. Ernie Money: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great opportunities where expenditure of this sort can be used to the fullest advantage is on the lines adopted by the Cambridge colleges, which have agreed to share some of their sporting and recreational facilities with the community in which they exist?

Mr. Winterton: I do not wish to be diverted from my argument, but I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money).
I have one note of criticism on a parochial matter. In my constituency at Rainow, the Cheshire authority is about to build a new junior school. It is already envisaged, I regret to say, that this school will immediately have to have what I describe as temporary portable or mobile


classrooms. That is wrong. The authority is wrong even to envisage providing a new school with temporary accommodation alongside from the start. I would hope that the 22 per cent. increase will now allow the authority to build a proper school in a permanent structure from the outset.
I trust that we shall hear a little from the Opposition about the substantial increase in the major schools programme in 1973-74 resulting from my right hon. Friend's announcement today. This will be increased by some £35·4 million, if my interpretation of what was said earlier is correct. The minor works programme will also be increased. I agree that this is to allow for inflation, but it is substantially increased and I hope that we can have just a glimmer of gratitude from the Labour Party.
The Government have made gigantic strides in education and it is about time that some of the success that has been achieved was acknowledged by the Opposition.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I shall be brief, to allow for the Front Bench speakers to intervene. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) may be right if the Secretary of State has managed to get enough money out of the Treasury to maintain standards which were in vogue about 10 years ago, but when I questioned her about this at Question Time today I do not think I was given that guarantee. It has been suggested that 22 per cent. will only just keep pace with existing standards and, as has been amply demonstrated by my hon. Friends, standards in terms of teaching space have been going down. The hon. Member for Macclesfield is right in saying that expectations have been going up, and on that basis the Secretary of State has not even been able to maintain existing standards, many of which had been questionable for many years.
One of my hon. Friends mentioned the standard of construction. Nearly 20 years ago, when I joined a newly-built school under the Horsbrugh regime, I was shocked at the quality of the building. It had a roof of exactly the same material as I had put on my garden shed only the week before. Those were the sort of standards the builders had to provide in

order to come within the cost limits. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) quoted from the ILEA letter, of which I, too, have a copy. It said that the increase in 1972 was of 15 per cent. It went on:
It was announced that this increase had a dual purpose: to cover the rise in costs over the past year and to include a substantial contribution towards a restoration of standards. In our experience it has done neither.
The letter went on to give figures which showed that this was so.
In my borough of Ealing I am told that one of the great difficulties is getting contracts for small extensions—relatively small in cost building terms but very important for comprehensive redevelopment programmes and for increasing school size where primary school rolls are getting bigger. The complicated adaptation works are therefore less attractive to builders who are not interested in them. There are difficult problems in that respect, and in my own constituency I know particularly of Berrymead School, where the problem is acute.
I want to deal with the question of the cost limits system. In spite of the efforts of the Secretary of State to keep pace with rising costs I do not think she has managed to do it. The cost limits system is of questionable benefit. It is allied to standards, and those standards are laid down and assumed to be correct. If those standards were realistic we might not disagree with the system. In my experience they are not realistic in educational terms, and all I have been able to get after questioning the Department for two years on the subject is evasion. The only answer that I can assume is correct is that the Treasury will not allow school standards to be raised because it would cost too much.
On 6th May, 1971, I asked the right hon. Lady:
if she is satisfied that the minimum areas of floorspace specified in the School Building Regulations are based on an adequate investigation of educational needs.
She said that she was, so I asked
what were the terms of reference of that investigation, who undertook it, when it was undertaken and what criteria they used?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1613.]
She referred me to the many studies that have been produced on school building in the building bulletins. None of them really goes into the question in detail.
Now, 32 sq. ft. per schoolchild has been mentioned, but the Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act requires a minimum floor area of 40 sq. ft. In a 500 sq. ft. classroom for 30 pupils, each pupil gets less than half that. That is the standard of the so-called regulations, and it is clearly inadequate.
The Under-Secretary has been in correspendence with me about the adequacy of the regulations. Neither he nor his noble Friend in another place have seen fit to enter into official conversation on the matter. No evidence has been given to me that these regulations have been based on sound, fundamental educational criteria. They have promised that a building bulletin will be published shortly which they say incorporates some justification.
I do not think that the present regulations are adequate. We need at least 50 per cent. more floor space per pupil if the proper flexibility in education and the standards which have been mentioned are to be achieved. Until then, we have to assume that the Treasury has a greater say in these matters than the Department of Education and Science.

9.21 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: Unlike two or three Conservative Members, I had every intention of speaking in the debate when I came into the Chamber this afternoon.
During the debate nobody from the Conservative side has denied the allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made, that the quality of building has gone down and that job starts have been slowed down. The right hon. Lady did not deny that allegation. It is true that she announced an increase of 22 per cent. in the cost building limits.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), who came into the tent, seems to have left it quickly. I would say, in his absence, that this is not a debate about the number of teachers versus fewer buildings, as one or two hon. Gentlemen have tried to make it. The right hon. Lady did not say that. She did not say that she was unable to offer more for buildings because she was going to increase the number of teachers.
The right hon. Lady was asked—she did not give much of an explanation, so I will ask the Under-Secretary to elaborate on the matter—how the figure of 22 per cent. was arrived at. I know the right hon. Lady said it was by study and deliberation, but if she took into consideration all the representations that have been made by local authorities she would know that, by and large, we need an increase in the building cost limit of between 35 and 40 per cent. and that this may well need to be increased again if building costs continue to rise as they have in the last three years.
It is no good the right hon. Lady or her hon. Friends telling us about the way in which allocations have increased over the years in money terms, unless they can show, by showing this kind of money increase, that this has outstripped inflation, and that it has at the same time improved the standards and quality of this provision. Therefore, when people quote sums of money, they must relate them to the rate of inflation which, as the right hon. Lady has said, has made the building programme exceedingly difficult and costly.
It is not a question of not being mindful of the fact that there has been an increase. What we are saying—it was not until my hon. Friend made the statement some weeks ago about the need for an increase that we were told that there would be one—is that local authorities which have provided us and no doubt the right hon. Lady with jnformation are maintaining, and will maintain tomorrow, that this will do little to meet their needs.
Some Conservative Members have said that we have made too much of a meal of this; that we are exaggerating, and being unfair. My information—I believe that this is true of my hon. Friend—is not information that we have dreamed up; it has been provided to us by local authorities of both political complexions. The right hon. Lady has these figures as well as we have.
Almost every local authority that we have contacted has shown a reduction in various facilities, particularly floor space, to meet the existing limits. Can the Under-Secretary give us a guarantee that all those local authorities that have complained that the present cost limits have caused this cut back will now be able to


return to the floor space that they had intended to provide in all future programmes, now that we have the 22 per cent. increase? This is one of the things that they will want to know, and, on the basis of the information that I have, the answer is bound to be, "No".
The important thing, after all, is that we are building for thousands of schoolchildren of the future and the development of various educational methods makes the provision of space a necessity if we are not to return to cramped and unsavoury conditions.
Several of my hon. Friends have said that some of the first things that go when economies are made are the very things that many people have fought for years to provide in education—pleasant surroundings, play space, trees, and the rest. It is obvious to every hon. Member, on whichever side of the argument he stands, that the philosophy of education and the way in which we are developing educational concepts far outstrip the facilities which are made available.
Therefore, when we are talking about buildings we have to remember the way in which educational trends are going and will go in the years ahead, and in the many years for which these buildings will be used. Some open plan schools, for example, require air conditioning, which is expensive but necessary. In the present cost limits, this has been made very difficult for many schools, which have had to cut back on floor space.
The present crisis over buildings is a reflection of the general tendency over the past few years for building standards to remain static, or even to decline, while staffing resources have often expanded. On all sides in education there is understandable pressure to increase the range and number of courses, particularly in relation to the school leaving age. Providing these courses, and, at times, employing extra staff, make demands on buildings—demands which will become greater in future, and for which the present attitude to cost limit increases makes no allowance.
I said that all my information had come from local authorities, and I want to quote two or three to which my hon. Friend did not have time to refer. Nottingham has said that its aim was a minimum 38 sq. ft. of space per pupil. Unfortunately, the present cost limit has

reduced this to a maximum of 34 sq. ft. When the yardstick went up last year, Nottingham returned to a design of 38 sq. ft., but with tenders at 25 per cent. above the limit it needed drastic reductions plus detailed negotiations and tremendous cut-backs on many of the things already mentioned to achieve a possible tender at all.
Nottingham also said, as did many local authorities, that the cost of maintenance of buildings is bound to increase because of the inferior materials that are being used. It said that if building new schools means a square footage of 34 or less per cost place, it is hardly worth doing, since the new buildings will not be as spacious, and in many ways not as strong or weatherproof, as some of the older ones, and that acute maintenance costs will make things much more expensive in the long run.
The West Riding—and my hon. Friend mentioned this—said that it found it impossible to get the tenders for seven projects. If one looks at these projects suitably adjusted downwards it looks as if they will have to be started in 1973–74 instead of 1972–73, leading presumably to subsequent deferment of projects for that year. In the case of these schools the West Riding considers, quite rightly, that one of the greatest difficulties has been that there is so little room for manoeuvre and cut back of projects when costed at the relatively low figure of £70,000 and £100,000. Right across the board, whichever local authority one looks at, one find a general feeling of frustration and inadequacy, because local authorities feel they cannot make the provision which they know is needed if they are to make buildings applicable to the years ahead.
Southampton, as the right hon. Lady knows, is a high-cost building area. This, it is true, was recognised by the DES, which allowed a 6½ per cent. increase on the programme costs for five schools. Welcome though this was, says Southampton, it was not sufficient to close the gap between the lowest tender and the revised cost allowance.
Bristol is faced with a reduction in standards to get anywhere near the cost limits and suggests that minimum building standards are about 20 years out of date. One hon. Gentleman asked what


inferior building materials were being used. We gather from them that they are faced with the problem of wooden rather than brick exteriors, and these do not wear as well and require more maintenance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) gave instances in connection with Durham. I want to give one other instance of Durham which worries me very much, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with this when he concludes the debate. A major difficulty has arisen in Durham over the totally unrealistic cost limits imposed on nursery school projects. The right hon. Lady is very proud of her intention to expand nursery education and I have always welcomed that intention, but one needs to be assured that this will go ahead, because Durham reports that, having obtained a Home Office allocation under the urban aid programme for realistic costs, these were cut back by the DES. Consequently, it has been found impossible to finance urban aid nursery schools within the cost limits in both financial years 1971–72 and 1972–73 without additional minor capital finance. At the moment Durham has one such nursery school in the 1972–73 programme to which the DES is not prepared to allow them to allocate the minor works capital funds required.
This, I believe, needs looking at and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that he will look at what is going on in Durham, because if the Home Office sanctions a nursery school under the urban aid programme this means it is in an area of social deprivation and is something which is desperately needed. I hope it was never the intention of the right hon. Lady to interfere with the predictions and allocations made by the Home Office under this programme.
The DES granted an increase to Birmingham of 15 per cent. in the cost limits in April 1972 and hoped:
that it would cover the increase in costs over the past year and including a substantial contribution towards the restoration of standards.
In fact, the city architect has reported that this increase failed to meet the shortfall which was apparent in the cost limits at that date and made no con-

tribution towards the restoration of standards. He, like others, believes that the only way we can return to a position in which former standards can be adopted and there can be any hope of achieving tenders within the cost limits is by adding to the present cost limits an increase of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. That is why we say that the present increase is inadequate—because it will not meet the needs of these local authorities.
Has the right hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman considered adopting, in respect of school building, the regional weighting policy at present adopted by the Department of the Environment? I think that the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) made this point, and I believe it is worth looking at and considering because building costs vary enormously in different parts of the country. Many Opposition Members believe that this policy of the Department of the Environment is well worth following.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge made another point, which I felt was slightly sinister. He said that we were dealing with inflation and that the Opposition were rather ungenerous because we did not seem to recognise that dealing with inflation affects public expenditure. I do not know what knowledge the hon. Gentleman has on this, in relation to the school building programme, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say that inflation is not going to affect the school building programme, as implied by the hon. Member for Tonbridge. Can the Under-Secretary of State give us a guarantee that the five-year school building programme will go ahead? Can we be assured that it will be maintained, and that no cuts in public expenditure will affect it? We need that essential assurance.
There was one grave omission from the right hon. Lady's speech, perhaps because of time, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with it. In March 1973, the Association of Municipal Corporations, in a report, drew attention to the grave difficulties faced by education authorities in the provision of fire precautions. Many of us are fully aware of the difficulties and dangers involved. The report says:
Practically all local authorities are increasingly embarrassed by the requirements of fire


officers, whose standards continue to outstrip resources.
The right hon. Lady told the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) that she was writing to him on this point. It is a vitally important matter, which demands immediate attention, and it is being sadly overlooked.
If what education authorities are saying is true—that they cannot meet the requirements of the fire officers—surely we are in grave danger. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us that extra money is to be made available immediately for local authorities to deal with the requirements of the fire officers, whose demands reflect the need for safety for children in our schools. There is no doubt that the present precautions are inadequate, as the fire officers claim. This surely requires immediate attention, which cannot be included in the present inadequate cost limits.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do us the courtesy of recognising that we did not initiate this debate in order to present a non-existent case but because, throughout the country, in areas represented by local authorities of various political complexions, we are receiving information, which has been adequately demonstrated by my hon. Friends, that they are in grave difficulties with their building programmes. All the information made available in the debate has been provided to us by the local authorities. We did not dream it up or invent it.
As the right hon. Lady has said, building costs have escalated. Part of the reason is the existing tremendous inflation. It is the Opposition's view that, if we do not get double the increase announced by the right hon. Lady today, we shall not be able to meet the urgent need of the local authorities to provide the buildings suitable to education in the 1970s and, more importantly, in the years that will follow.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): This has been an interesting and valuable, if short, debate, and short debates are valuable because of the discipline of short speeches, which are good for everyone, not least those who speak from the respective Front

Benches. In this short compass of time, four long Front Bench speeches would be even more than this House could endure. I assure the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who was her usual persuasive and passionate self, that we take this matter seriously.
A debate on cost limits looks at first sight to be rather formidably technical. In fact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the lucid exposition which she gave in her opening speech of the nature and purpose of cost limits, showed that they are an essential tool of financial control vital in the building sector of the education service, because, if that sector is not strictly disciplined, it can unbalance the whole education budget.
Every Government since 1949 have employed cost limits. A future Labour Government, should there be such a phenonomen again, which does not look very likely at present, would retain and utilise them. Not even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who produces a new education policy almost every week, suggested that cost limits should be done away with.
Nor is the gravamen of the charge that we have heard tonight that of inflation. The centre of our discussion is education, not incomes policy. Of course inflation produces stresses and strains in every sector of our social life. But whether the Government are dealing adequately with inflation is not the central question. The central question is a clear and simple one. It is whether in operating the system of cost controls the Government are doing it wisely and prudently, as my right hon. Friend and I maintain, or whether they are doing it harshly and unreasonably, as the Opposition suggest.
At this point I deal in footnote form with the question of tenders raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby). Clearly fixed-price tenders present problems, but if we moved away from them we should have equally complicated problems to face. One point about fixed-price tenders which is extremely relevant to our debate, because our policy is that a fixed-price tender is obligatory for contracts which are to be completed within two years, is that it means that tender prices, especially in an inflationary period, run ahead of rises in


costs. The reason is that such prices are not assessments of present costs but estimates of future costs to the contractor. Therefore, it is essential to take that into account when trying to understand the gravity of the problem.
I say at once that the inflationary situation, which in their less partisan moments right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches are prepared to recognise, is a world-wide one. It makes prudent cost limits more and not less essential. In a programme as vast as the education building programme with spenders as powerful as the local education authorities, if there were no checks there would be an immediate rise in inflationary pressures which could not be confined to the education service but would affect immediately the whole of the economy.
In a remark which did more credit to her loyalty than her judgment, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough sought to indicate that we had done nothing about this until the hon. Member for Spark-brook saw the light at Easter at Scarborough and demanded that the Department of Education and Science should act. It really is unworthy of the hon. Lady to attempt to squeeze some drops of partisan advantage out of a national problem which, as she has recognised in the more moderate parts of her speech, is of profound difficulty and complexity.
The 22 per cent. increase which was announced today was the result of intensive consultation within the Department and within the Government in general, in the context of a counter-inflation policy. In that context, if the policy announced by my right hon. Friend came a few weeks late, that is a perfectly reasonable situation because of the complexity not only of the problem in itself but of the problem of enforcing an effective counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Marks: What consultation was there with local authorities? What consultations were there with the building industry before 22 per cent. was decided on?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There was continual discussions with local authorities. There are continual discussions going on about building costs. It is one of the

things that occupies most of the time of hard-worked officials in the Department.
So many speeches which have been made from the Opposition side of the House today scarcely seem to have taken this massive increase of 22 per cent. into account. As my right hon. Friend said— she put it in very graphic figures—a primary school place which had a cost limit of £227 in 1970 has a limit of £361 today under the new scheme. What the figure represents is the highest possible increase compatible with not stoking up the inflationary furnace which the policy is designed in part to damp down. That is the point of balance we are seeking to obtain, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) referred in his speech. With this 22 per cent., the fact is that the total increase in cost limits which has taken place since the Government took office is 58 per cent.
The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough asked me what the 22 per cent. figure was based on. I reply to her that it was based on the movement of building costs over the past 12 months. She raised also the question of differential regional costs limits and suggested that these might be introduced. This again is a problem of great complexity. I refer her to a reasonably impartial source, The Times Educational Supplement, which pointed out in a recent leading article the formidable difficulties in the way of such a project.
As to the fire danger, of course I am concerned with the situation if there is any risk of fire danger to children. However, the hon. Lady does not seem to be aware that education establishments are not yet subject to the Fire Precautions Act. Fire officers act in an advisory capacity. The hon. Lady may regret this, but I am neither regretting it nor welcoming it. I am merely stating what are the facts of the situation. Schools will eventually be made subject to that Act.
The second charge which has been brought by the Opposition today is that there has been a deterioration in standards. It is certainly true that in a period of financial stringency one has to look carefully at standards. There are real difficulties here. I do not deny them. The hon. Member for Durham North-West (Mr. Armstrong), asked whether


I considered it a problem. Does my right hon. Friend consider it a problem? Of course we do. It is because we consider it a problem that we have raised the cost limit today by 22 per cent. That will do much to prevent a decline in standards.
We do not have to accept the horror stories that have been peddled about by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman must bounce down again. I will not be intimidated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No. There are conventions in this House. However, as far as I know, it is not a convention of this House that, because an Opposition spokesman bounces to the Dispatch Box in a fit of simulated fury, one is required to cower back to one's own bench in terror. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in my own time.

Mr. Hattersley: Has the time now come?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes.

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to horror stories peddled about by me and perhaps by some of my hon. Friends. Will he now tell the House which of the facts from local authorities that I recited during 25 minutes in opening the debate are not true?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine case, with details, which he thinks—

Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Gentleman has had them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: —calls for investigation by the Department, I will certainly see that it is carried out.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is it not true that under any Government, if one rang every local authority, one could find something to spend 25 minutes at the Dispatch Box talking about?

Mrs. Short: That is stupid.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If one rang every education authority, one would not be complying with the spirit of cost limits.
I want to pay tribute to the flexible way in which, in a difficult situation, the problems have been handled by both representatives of local education authorities and the Department's building territorial teams. Projects with abnormal conditions, such as site difficulties, have been examined most carefully and sympathetically. I repeat my pledge that we shall continue to do that and seek to act in as helpful a manner as possible.
The third charge made by the Opposition is that starting dates have been postponed. The hon. Member for Spark-brook has said that nine out of every 10 local education authorities in England and Wales were unable to find any contractor willing to build primary schools within the cost limits set by the Department of Education and Science, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of projects in the building programme have started. So who is building them? Is it the contractors or the gnomes of Sparkbrook?
We have not yet got all the figures for projects which started by the end of the building year, but my right hon. Friend has said that they are likely to represent well over 95 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the bona fides of the Department of Education and Science, I suggest that he should turn to the Economist of 28th April 1973 which stated how exaggerated his claims were.

Mr. Hattersley: What was the headline?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not an advertising agent for the hon. Gentleman. Let him peddle his own headlines round the country. He is not bad at that.
The hypocrisy of the Opposition in this matter is bad enough. Here they are, the reincarnation of Oliver Twist, demanding ever more; but, in view of their record on their own building programme, a modest and decent silence would seem to be the most appropriate attitude.
What is worse is the sheer irresponsibility of demanding everything for education without any consideration for the costs involved. Cost limits are most needed on the inflated fantasies of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Both he and the rest of the Opposition are discharging their function on this matter more as if they were players of Monopoly


than responsible spokesmen for education affairs. It is easy to demand increases for better schools, for better universities, for higher salaries for teachers and for more grants for students, but it is not so easy to find the money to pay for all those proposals.
We have had a good example of that today. A 22 per cent. rise has been announced in building cost limits.

Mrs. Renée Short: That is not enough.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not need prompting from my foil at this point.

Mrs. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what my authority is supposed to do when building costs have risen by 30 per cent. and he is offering only 20 per cent. extra to meet those increased costs?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Lady's figures are not correct. The index does not show a rise—I do not know what the hon. Lady is waving at me, but I cannot take that as establishing a figure. I prefer to stick to the index rather than to her intuitions.
The rise which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has demanded has been one of 40 per cent. That would add an additional £90·8 million to the education budget, £40·9 million more than has been suggested from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that in high-cost construction areas the grants should be in the region of 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. It is impossible to cost that, but it must add many millions of pounds more.
I have set out to try to cost roughly the proposals put forward for the education service by the Opposition and the hon. Member for Sparkbrook up to the end of 1981, which is the period covered by the White Paper. I am not referring to the absurdities of the Green Paper, with its call for 1 million students, for compulsory day release and for grants for all. I am talking about the propositions put forward as official policy from the Opposition Front Bench. We have the £285 million proposal today for cost limits. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's proposals for nursery schools.
My right hon. Friend has costed those proposals. They would involve £20 million a year and a capital expenditure

of £70 million; a total of £210 million. We have had the Labour proposals to abolish the direct grant schools and grammar schools, which would cost £420 million over the period. Those figures are the figures of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), the former and muchlamented Opposition Front Bench spokesman on education. It is no good members of the Shadow Cabinet scoffing at those figures.
We then had the proposals of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook for higher education. He wants the number of students raised to 875,000. That is liable to cost £190 million. The hon. Gentleman wants student grants increased; that would cost £60 million a year.
We have this extraordinary situation that in five months of shadow office the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has put forward proposals amounting to £1,700 million extra expenditure. It is no wonder that he said in an interview reported in the Teacher that the first thing he would do on becoming Secretary of State for Education would be to go and have a row with the Treasury. As the hon. Gentleman likes headlines, I shall tell the House what the Teacher then said:
How long Mr. Hattersley will stay as Britain's alternative Education Secretary is anybody's guess.
The country will know how to evaluate these promises and will dismiss them lightly enough. But there is a serious constitutional point here. Shall we support the reasonable and, in the circumstances, generous proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend and myself, or shall we treat as serious the uncosted and irresponsible demands for unconditional increases put forward by the Opposition spokesmen in the House today? The House and the country will have no difficulty in giving the Government their support.

Question put,
That this House regrets that the unprecedented increase in building costs and the refusal of the Government to allow an adequate general increase in the cost ceiling have resulted in both damaging deterioration in the standard of new schools and the postponement of starting dates for the construction of many education building projects; and calls upon the Government to announce an increase in the building cost ceiling which is sufficient to meet the needs of local education authorities:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 271.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boardman, H. (Leigh) 
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) 


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) 
Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D. 


Allen, Scholefield
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) 
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.) 
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) 


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) 
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T. 
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury) 
Cronin, John


Barnes, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) 
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) 
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) 


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) 
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) 


Baxter, William
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) 
Dalyell, Tam


Beaney, Alan
Cant, R. B. 
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) 


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton) 
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) 
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) 


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) 
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) 


Bishop, E. S. 
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) 




Deakins, Eric
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Probert, Arthur


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Radice, Giles


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas-Mann Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Slockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashlon-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford,E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Garrett W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow,C.)
Strang, Gavin


Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mallalieu, J. P- W. (Huddersfield, E.)
summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Grant. John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, Davit
Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsden, F.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tinn, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Torney, Tom


Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael
Tuck, Rapheal


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin


Hart Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hattersley Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Healey. Rt. Hn. Denis
Millne, Edward
Wallace, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
 watkins, David


Hilton, W.S.
Molloy, William
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Houghton, Rt Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Lesie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
white, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Moyle, Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Clewyn (Anglesy)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Ferderick
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
willey, Rt. Hn. Fedrick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alan (swansea, W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Irvine. Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
woof, Robert


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter



John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chichester-Clark, R.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bowden, Andrew
Churchill, W. S.


Astor, John
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bray, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Awdry, Daniel
Brewis, John
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Coombs, Derek


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cooper, A. E.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J
Cormack, Patrick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Bryan, Sir Paul
Costain, A. P


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N*M)
Crowder, F. P.


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
dAvigdor-Goldsmld,Maj.-Gen.Jack


Bifien, John
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Mark
Dixon, Piers







Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knox, David
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lambton, Lord
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rost, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, R. N.
St, John-Stevas, Norman


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin
Shersby, Michael


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Simeons, Charles


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Sinclair Sir George


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maddan, Martin
Soref, Harold


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gorst, John
Maginnis, John E.
Spence, John


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Sproat, lain


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury SI. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Ballast, N.)
Stokes, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Sutcliffe, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Havers, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Hawkins Paul
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hayhoe Barney
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Tilney, John



Murton, Oscar



Higglns, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey
Trew, Peter


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Noble Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard



Nott, John
Waddington, David


Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Particia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walters, Dennis


Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris, (Stockport, N.)
Ward, DameIrene


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Wilkinson, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Woirige-Gordon, Patrick


Jessel, Toby
PiKe, Miss Mervyn
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt Mark


Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley Marcus


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudloot, Wilfred



Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Raison, Timothy
Mr, Bernard Weatherill


King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Ashton, Joe
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ogden, Eric


Bag or, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, William (File, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oram, Bert


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Baxter, William
Hart, Rt. Hn.Judith
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denia
Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Brldgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Wallet


Bidwell, Sydney
Hilton, W. S.
Paget, R. T.


Bishop, E. S.
Hooson Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert




Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pavitt, Laurie


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hugjes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)



Brown, Robert C. (Nc'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. {G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert Arthur


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur'Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Rhodes Geoffrey '


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard' Ivor


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechlord)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Nirthfield)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. william (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands Ted


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sandelson, Neville


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
short, Mrs. Renee (Whampton.N.E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. john (Deptfort)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russel
Silverman, Julius


Cronin, John




Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lamble, David
Spearing, Nigel


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cunnngham.G. (Islington SW.)
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David (Swlndon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Latham, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Leadbltter, Ted
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dav es, Denzil (Llanally)
Lee, Rt. Hn. FreDerick 
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, G. Elfled (Rhondda, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Taverne, Dick


Davis, Clinton (Hackney. C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Davis Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlislie)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery)


Deaklns, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, kenneth
Tinn, James


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlln, Charles
Tope, Graham


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Torney Tom


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Dormand, J. p.
McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, Edwin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Waldert, Brian (B'rn'ham, All Saint.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Duffy, A.E.P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wallace, George


Dunn, James A.
Mackie, John
 Watkins, David


Eadle, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Weltzman, David


Edelman, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
wells William (Walsall N)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)


Ellis, Tom
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
whitehead, Phillip


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Evans, Fred
Marquand, David
Wllley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ewing, Harry
Marsden, F.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fernyhough, R. Hn. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Kltchln)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr James Hamilton and


Gilbert, Dr. John
Molloy, William
Mr. Joseph Harper.







NOES


Adley, Robert
Gower, Raymond
Mlscampbeil, Norman


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gram, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Green, Alan
Moate, Roger


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Molyneaux, James


Astor, John
Grylls, Michael
Money, Ernie


Atkins, Humphrey
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hail, Miss Joan (Kelghley)
Montgomery, Fergus


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David


Benyon, W.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hivks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bowden Andrew
Hiley, Joseph
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bray, Ronald




Brewis, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Phillip
Parkinson, Cecil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Raison, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir PEter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Coombs, Derek
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley,Hn. Nicholas


Corfleld, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Lambton, Lord
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Shersby, Michael


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles


Drayson, G. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Luce, R. N.
Spence, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, lain


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Nell
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Galbralth, Hn. T. G.D.
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gardner, Edward
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradllng (Monmouth,


Gorst, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)







Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tilney, John
Walters, Dennis
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Trarford, Dr. Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodnutt, Mark


Trew, Peter
Weatherill, Bernara
Worsley, Marcus


Tugendhat, Christopher
 White, Roger (Gravesend)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wiggin, Jerry



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Bahamas Independence Bill and the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Land Compensation Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Murton.]

Orders of the Day — BAHAMAS INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.12 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of this Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill.
In introducing the Bill I want to set out for the House something of the British historical connection with the Bahamas and the recent constitutional developments which have resulted in the Bahamian request for independence. I shall also describe the broad features of the Bill itself. With the permission of Mr. Speaker and of the House, it is also my intention to wind up this debate, and I will then deal with matters that will be raised on the amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
The purpose of the Bill is very simple: it is, in the words of the Preamble, to
make provision for and in connection with, the attainment by the Bahamas of full responsible status within the Commonwealth.
The Bahamas House of Assembly and the Senate passed a resolution, without any dissentient vote on 2nd November, 1972, requesting independence. At the same time they also passed a resolution making clear the wish of the Bahamas that the country should remain a monarchy within the Commonwealth. They asked that Her Majesty's Government should sponsor their application for Commonwealth membership. As the House will already know, the question of Com-

monwealth membership for the Bahamas has been referred to the Commonwealth Heads of Government by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, who announced in Wellington on 3rd April that all had agreed to Bahamas membership on independence.
As the Empire has gradually transformed itself into a Commonwealth, and as Independence Bill followed Independence Bill, each Minister in turn has by custom briefly looked at the history of the country concerned and our connection with it.
Even before Christopher Columbus made the first European discovery of America he had first to discover the Bahamas, and it was on the island of San Salvador that he made his first landfall after the dramatic 36 days sailing across the Atlantic in 1492. British sailors and the British inhabitants of Bermuda and the Carolinas knew the Bahamas as far back as the early sixteenth century. Close association with the islands began in 1629 when Charles I included the Bahamas in a Royal Grant to Sir Robert Heath, the then Attorney-General.
The first permanent settlement came in 1647 when the Company of Elutherian Adventurers was formed in London with the specific aim of an organised and systematic colonisation of the islands, which by then had been completely depopulated and abandoned by the Spaniards. It can be said that Britain's close connection with the Bahamas really started from that time.
By 1665 the first settlement had been firmly established and, under the articles of the company, a regular system of popular government was introduced, including the creation of a Senate of 100 members. The Adventurers' efforts to populate the islands, however, were not particularly successful, and in 1670 the Bahamas were granted to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina. This was a wild time in Bahamian history, with buccaneers and pirates scouring the Caribbean and the Spaniards sailing the Spanish Main and retaliating for raids on their shipping.
All this, understandably, was too much for those high-sounding Lords Proprietors of Carolina who surrendered their


government of the area to the British Crown in 1717. In passing, it is worth remembering that one of the Governors of the Bahamas who did much to restore order was Captain Rogers, who rescued Alexander Selkirk from the island of Juan Fernandez. We know Alexander Selkirk in literature as Robinson Crusoe.
Once Nassau was seized by the American Naval Squadron for a few days; once the islands were captured by the Spaniards—but a year later in 1783, they were confirmed as British by the Treaty of Versailles. The population of the islands then grew to about 11,000 with the influx of loyalist refugees from the American War of Independence. One can only touch on whole decades of history in a few words, but the 19th century in general was a period of lean years, with ups and downs and the wrecking of passing ships as being one of the more dramatic occupations designed to sink the ships but keep the economy afloat. Indeed, it was only the building of the Imperial Lighthouse Service in the 1850s and 1860s, which brough the practice to an end. Many of these lighthouses are still in operation and their future is dealt with in the Bill.
Today the prosperity of the islands depends very largely on the tourist industry. It accounts for 60 per cent. of the Government's revenue and for half of the country's foreign exchange earnings. The absence of any direct taxation, coupled with economic and political stability, has given the necessary encouragement for foreign investment and the development of an international banking industry.
I shall now pass very briefly to constitutional development in the Bahamas in recent years. Apart from the creation of a Legislative Council in 1841, the unwritten constitution of 1729 remained in force until the middle of the 20th century. The present legislature of the Bahamas can claim direct descent from 1729. It is the fourth oldest legislature in the British Commonwealth.
A ministerial system of government was introduced in 1963 after a constitutional conference. The Governor was required to act on the Cabinet's advice in all matters except those concerning defence, external affairs, internal security and the public service.
After the general election of 1968, which was won by the Progressive Liberal Party under Mr. Pindling, the present Prime Minister, a further constitutional conference was held. Bahamas was then granted the most advanced form of constitution possible short of full independence. A further general election was fought in September 1972 and Mr. Pindling and his party put to the voters the question of early independence.
The House will recall that the Government party won the election, obtaining 29 of the 38 seats in the House of Assembly and some 60 per cent. of the votes cast. Following that election success, the Bahamas Government published a White Paper outlining its proposals for independence. A resolution was passed in both Houses of the Legislature asking that independence should be granted. It is important to note that the resolution was passed without a dissenting vote.
An independence conference, in which delegates from both the Government and the Opposition took part, was held in London last December. Its purpose was to establish the principles on which the independence constitution should be based. The report of that conference was presented to this House in a White Paper Cmnd. 5196. Unanimous agreement was reached at the 1972 constitutional conference.
I do not think that the House will need a very detailed description of the Bill. In the main it follows the lines of previous independence Bills, and as is usual, the future constitution of the Bahamas will be embodied in an Order in Council to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council after the Bill becomes law. The terms of this constitution have been discussed with the Bahamas Government and Opposition and all the main provisions have been settled.
There are, however, three clauses of the Bill of which some explanation may be helpful. They are those relating to citizenship—Clauses 2 and 3—and to the transfer of colonial lighthouses to Bahamas Government ownership— Clause 5. The citizenship provisions reflect the arrangements which were agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Bahamas representatives at the independence conference last December.
It was then decided that citizenship of the Bahamas should be automatically acquired at the time of independence by every person who, having been born in the Bahamas before independence, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and by every person having been born outside the Bahamas before independence who, on the day of independence, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, if his father, having been born in the Bahamas, becomes or, but for his death, would have become a citizen of the Bahamas.
Also it lays down that after independence citizenship should automatically be acquired by every person born in the Bahamas after independence of a Bahamian parent; and every person born outside the Bahamas after independence whose father was born in and is a citizen of the Bahamas.
At the time of independence Bahamas citizenship would also be extended automatically to all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who acquired that status by naturalisation or registration in the Bahamas, with the exception of persons who have dual nationality; those registered persons who are not ordinarily resident in the Bahamas at the end of 1972; persons registering after the end of 1972; and naturalised persons who indicate that they do not wish to accept Bahamas citizenship.
The citizenship provisions are complicated. I apologise for wearying the House with them but they are important. We can discuss them in detail in Committee but perhaps I can make some general points now. First, with some very limited exceptions, of those persons who owe their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to their connections with the Bahamas, only those who also have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining United Kingdom dependent territory will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies after Bahamian independence.
I have referred to the exceptions already. They are numerically insignificant. There is thus no danger of the Bill creating substantial numbers of United Kingdom passport holders with a

right to come here at some point in the future. Nor will the Bill make anyone stateless.
The other point which I think may need a short explanation is the transfer on independence of the Imperial Lighthouse Service lights in the Bahamas to the Bahamas Government. There are at present nine lights, operated by the Department of Trade and Industry, which will be transferred on independence to the Bahamas Government, who will then assume responsibility for their operation and administration. We have agreed that the Bahamas Government should control these lighthouses after independence. With the Bahamas's heavy reliance on the tourist industry for their prosperity, it is essential to them that these navigational aids should be maintained around their coasts as a protection against shipwrecks and consequential pollution of their beaches.
I have spoken of our long period of association with the Bahamas, stretching back more than 300 years. With the passage of this Bill and with the introduction of the independence constitution, the Bahamas Government of today and the Governments of the future will take on the full constitutional responsibility of governing and administering an archipelago of islands, widely separated, with their different problems, and stretching over 700 miles from north to south. Over the years, many people have gone from this country, either as visitors or to earn their living there or to help in the administration of Government. Virtually without exception when one speaks to those who know the Bahamas, they speak of their friendship with the people, and their enjoyment of the climate and the beauty of the islands.
Independence for the Bahamas on 10th July 1973 does not mean that we will be cutting our ties. It means that we will be replacing them so that our constitutional relations will be on a new basis—with the Commonwealth of the Bahamas with full responsible status as a member of the Commonwealth. I am sure that, just as many thousands have visited the Bahamas in the past, so, after independence, many more thousands will continue to go there and build yet stronger the ties of personal friendship, enjoy yet


more the common interest in sport and develop yet further the trade and potential of the area. In commending this Bill to the House, we wish their country and the people of the Bahamas every good fortune in the years which lie ahead.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on his historical expertise. I am sure the House listened, as I did, enthralled by his account of the very colourful and worthy history of this new sister-member of the Commonwealth. It is a story of adventure and of courage, of missionaries and buccaneers—among the latter of which some of us, with a kind of reluctant pride, may count some of our forebears.
The Bill has all-party support. The right hon. Gentleman has described the steps by which the people of the Bahamas, through their Legislature, finally reach practical unanimity about the contents of the measure. We in this House are united, with one or two reservations on some point, in supporting the Bill. I am glad on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition to extend our warmest good wishes to the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, as it will be known, as it enters this new phase in its history.
Our people and the people of the Bahamas are bound together, as we have heard, by very many ties of common experience, common effort in peace and war, and common language—I sometimes think also a common accent. The Bahamas, like Britain, have a very long tradition of parliamentary democracy, and we are delighted to see how firmly they are resolved to continue that tradition in their bicameral Legislature and to remain a monarchy within the Commonwealth. I am sure that we in this country will regard it as an honour to sponsor the application of the old State in a new guise for membership of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations Organisation. I take it that in both instances it is the United Kingdom which will be the sponsoring Power.
On 21st December last, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
… the conference agreed on the substance of a constitution of the Bahamas as an independent sovereign State.

I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain how the substance of the constitution had been agreed and that it would be the subject of an Order in Council at the appropriate time so that it was not necessary to include it in any form in this present measure.
The Foreign Secretary went on:
Throughout their deliberations the conference had in mind their responsibility for ensuring that decisions were taken in the best interests of all the people of the Bahamas, whatever their race, colour or creed. Particular attention was paid to the need to provide constitutional safeguards ensuring the rule of law, protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual, the independence of the judiciary, the impartiality of the public service and the maintenance of the constitution itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 468.]
It is in the light of that passage of the Foreign Secretary's statement that the reservations which are still felt by some of the inhabitants of the Bahamas, especially the island of Abaco, should be seen.
The new State describes itself as a commonwealth, thus indicating its intention to share all rights and duties on an impartial basis. We in this country confidently expect that the people of Abaco, like the rest of the people of the new commonwealth, will realise that this is so from their experience of independence.
As we have heard, when this legislation is passed, Independence Day will fall on 10th July this year. Before then, Her Majesty's Government will have discussed with the Bahamas Government future defence and financial arrangements. I do not propose to press the right hon. Gentleman on either point now, but I am sure that he could give an indication that these discussions have begun already and are proceeding smoothly. Perhaps he will confirm this.
The provisions on nationality and citizenship are, I think, fully acceptable. As the right hon. Gentleman has shown, where they depart from previous provisions they are departures that hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome, and doubtless there will be opportunities in Committee to look at this aspect of the measure. They are important provisions and, if there is any point of doubt or difficulty now arising or likely to arise, one hopes that it will be discussed and settled quickly. Much of


the difficulty arising from nationality and citizenship questions arises from allowing them to drag on without attention at the earliest possible time.
The new State is being launched with expectations of economic and social progress. Its industries, as I was glad to see when I was there, are gradually being diversified. No doubt the Government, under the system of independence, will seek further to diversify the economy of these islands, but tourism and service will continue to be the main source of employment and of revenue.
In 1972 the Bahamas welcomed a record number of visitors—over 1½ million. This was an increase of 3·3 per cent. on the previous year. The Minister said that he looked forward to an increase in the number of people from this country, and no doubt from Europe, who will be visiting the Bahamas in future. At the moment the number of European visitors to the islands is a mere fraction of the very large total. It is only 41,000, and of that number only a fairly small proportion in turn are from the United Kingdom. However, the number of visitors of European origin and from this country is growing, and the steady improvement of airline services must contribute to a further increase in this category of visitor. It is to be hoped that the British content of this increase will also continue to increase.
I conclude with a general word of welcome for this measure and a hope that it will pass its successive stages speedily and successfully.
I recall that I had the honour of leading the United Kingdom delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference when it was held in the Bahamas in 1968. Neither I nor any other member of that delegation will ever forget the warmth and dignity of the welcome extended to us. They are a very friendly people with a warm place in their hearts for this country. On that occasion the proceedings were admirably presided over by the Hon. L. I. Prindling, then, as now, the Prime Minister of his country and a most worthy leader of his people. To him, to the Government and Opposition of the Bahamian House of Assembly and Senate and to the people of the

islands I am sure that all hon. Members of this House will wish continued success and prosperity in future.

10.38 p.m.

Sir Douglas Dodds-Parker: At this late hour I do not intend to delay the House very long.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing to a successful conclusion negotiations that have been quietly going on for a number of years and to join the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) in welcoming yet another independent member of the Commonwealth to another part of the family, as it were.
I speak as the vice-chairman of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—at least until tomorrow—and I look forward to the new State attending our various conferences as a fully independent member.
My first indirect connection with the Bahamas was in the late 1940s in the Smaller Territories Committee, which was set up by Lord Attlee and Mr. Arthur Creech Jones to look into the possibilities of independence for these territories in the years ahead. It was not until 1965 that I had direct contact with the Bahamas, not so much in themselves, but in visiting other Commonwealth territories nearby.
The only point on which I slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend might be that some believe that Christopher Columbus's first landfall took place slightly further south in the Turks and Caicos islands. But we must leave it to those more expert than I in navigation to decide as the years go on.
I think we all realise that in an archipelago such as this with poor communications, which are always difficult with 700 islands, there are local difficulties. It is to be hoped that these will be resolved in future as communications improve. Such problems are not unknown in other parts of the world. In the north-west of the British isles not so long ago there were difficulties between islands whose communications were not so good.
I think that all hon. Members will sympathise with the feelings of certain minorities. We have seen in the past


30 years, during which the change from Empire to Commonwealth has taken place, that it has been difficult, if not impossible, to safeguard the interests of all minorities. But we hope that the new constitution, which is being voted on tonight in the Bill, can and will go a long way to resolve the fears and apprehensions of certain minorities.
Everyone in the House will watch with interest and sympathy the future of this new independent country. As the right hon. Member for Caernarvon said, there are not many natural resources in the Bahamas beyond the sun, the fresh air and the good will of the local inhabitants. Much will depend on them keeping a happy atmosphere there to continue to attract the overseas holidaymakers and others. I am sure that the House will wish good fortune to them in this change.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I wish the Bahamas every good fortune from the 10th July, when they become independent. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir D. Dodds-Parker). Tourism is not an ignoble trade. I wish that in my constituency of Kettering, in the heart of England. we could offer anything like the sun and sand of the Bahamas. I wish them well.
From my experience of new self-governing countries within the Commonwealth, my only worry is that the Bahamas will remain a monarchy. So long as a new country is independent and yet remains a monarchy, there is a problem. The picture of the Queen remains in public buildings, in the courts, and so on. Unless it has been an independent country for a very long time, such as Canada, for example, these pictures are somehow associated with British rule.
The problem is that the British presence there, which should immediately be established as the presence not of a former colonial Power but of a friendly diplomatic mission, is confused. Many people believe that because the Queen's picture is on the walls of the courts and of other public buildings in some way we in this House have control over what is happening there, when of course we have not. The country becomes independent. Therefore, it should be seen

to be independent. I am sorry that the Bahamas will remain a monarchy after independence because it will be a matter of a very few years at most, judging by other experience, before it ceases to be a monarchy.
It is important that right from the beginning the country should stand on its own feet and not be regarded by any of its own citizens as in any way dependent upon this country. Its Government should take the credit and the blame for what they do.
I wish the country well as an independent member of the Commonwealth. I hope that as soon as possible the Bahamas will become a republic and a worthy republic within the Commonwealth.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: As I may introduce a slightly more critical note into the debate, I should start by explaining how I come to be associated with the controversy over the independence of the Bahamas and, in particular, with the claims of one of the constituent islands, Abaco.
I have no financial interest whatsoever in the Bahamas—unfortunately—or in their independence or in the exclusion of the island of Abaco from that independence. Last year, however, I was professionally instructed on behalf of a group of citizens of the island of Abaco to advise and help them in deploying their case to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers at the time of the independence conference which took place last December at Marlborough House. I was so much attracted by the merits of the case which it was my duty to deploy—that is not always the experience of a member of the Bar—and I felt so strong a sympathy for the people of Abaco that when my professional connection finished I undertook to act in my political capacity to advance their cause as much as I could. While I have no financial interest in the matter, it is right I should say that much to the House should it be felt that in consequence I am somewhat biased in my approach. On the other hand, perhaps I know a little more about the matter than I should have known had I not pursued that course.
I put down on the Order Paper a reasoned amendment which has not been called. Of course, everything in that amendment can be discussed on Second Reading. I consider that there arise on Second Reading some considerations which the House should not pass over in ignorance. The main case for Abaco being excluded from independence and remaining a Crown Colony must be deployed in Committee. It is my intention to move the appropriate amendment in Committee. At this stage fairly general considerations arise.
I add one little supplement to my right hon. Friend's historical description. My right hon. Friend said rightly that the Bahamas have a long history of association with Britain. He mentioned the movement into the islands of British loyalists after the American War of Independence. Approximately 11,000 loyalists were moved down to various of the Bahama islands. Abaco was unique in that it was totally uninhabited when the loyalists were brought down in British warships and put on the island with their households and slaves. They have remained ever since. More than 90 per cent. of the present population of Abaco are the descendants of the British loyalists from the United States.
During the last two centuries the descendants of the loyalists have lived together and intermarried. It would be hard to define the racial extraction of most of those people. They cover all shades from white to black with most shades in between. As they have lived together in that way it is not surprising that there are none of the troubles associated with a mixed society which are so common in the world today. They are notable by their absence. It is very much a single community.
Loyalty to the British Crown is the historical reason for the islanders being there. It is an enduring theme of their life. It is of a reality and to a degree which must make some of us ashamed that in our own country there is not such devotion to Britain. It is still a live issue in Abaco. These people, 200 years after their ancestors' flight from America, found themselves suddenly faced with separation from the British Crown. What the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said is

absolutely true. My right hon. Friend is entitled to point out that the Bahamas have passed a resolution saying that they wish to remain under the British Crown. That will not last for long. The right hon. Gentleman may even be right in saying it should not last for long. It is a perfectly tenable point of view and I understand why he expresses it. It is unlikely to last for long. Therefore these people face, in practice, separation from that loyalty which has been the forming principle of their island's life for two centuries. That is wrong.
The other thing is that in the Bahamas in the last decade or two there has sprung up, based upon the island of New Providence, where nearly all the population of the Bahamas is—it is a very small island jammed with people, whereas Abaco must be 30 or 40 times as big and with only 4 per cent. of the population of the Bahamas—a somewhat virulent form of black nationalist Government. I do not propose to go into that. There may be a background which explains it in relation to New Providence or to other parts of the Bahamas, although I think not.
Certainly in Abaco this is a most unhappy prospect. The people are deeply perturbed at finding themselves involved in this kind of black nationalism. They refuse to take part in it and are denounced by the leaders of the PLP, the present ruling party, as "Uncle Toms and Aunt Chloes." That is a quotation from the Minister of Health in Parliament a few months ago, following the election and the question of independence becoming an issue.
This is what the Minister, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, said:
To all the Uncle Toms and all the Aunt Chloes I say—your days of prosperous destruction"—
I do not know what he meant by that—
are numbered and a doom, swift and terrible, is upon your behaviour—for we have overcome you and to the victor goes the glory.
He had previously said the same thing at his party's convention a month after the election. By "Uncle Toms and Aunt Chloes" he and his colleagues mean people of colour who are not anti-white.
That perfectly sums up the population of Abaco. Political victimisation is the first thing they have to fear and they have already experienced the appropriate


threats and, more than that, examples of it. The election was hardly over before individual cases of victimisation of the most alarming kind began to be manifested. I will not weary hon. Members, as I shall in Committee, with the specific examples. There are all too many of them. There is no lack of evidence. When I say in general terms that political victimisation is feared I can prove it with ample cases after the General Election in September. When I speak of black nationalism I can again justify it by specific quotations from Ministers of the Crown, as they are at present in the Bahamas. When I speak of corruption I can illustrate it with precision.
Contracts have been given to the highest tenderer instead of the lowest, because that tenderer is a PLP supporter. Abaco is a good case. A very big road had to be built there, 120 miles long. The contract was given to a company formed by a PLP supporter which owned no equipment at all and which put in the highest tender by a big margin. The company did not even own a wheelbarrow and had never built anything. It was given the contract and immediately sub-contracted the work to another company in the construction business. The first company put in a bid of 30,000 dollars a mile and sub-contracted for 20,000 dollars a mile. The two companies pocketed the difference. That kind of case can be multiplied in the island. This has produced a sense of profound depression among the people of Abaco. What are they to do? They do not want to become part of a black nationalist State of sharp antagonisms between black and white.
The prosperity of which my right hon. Friend spoke is not there now, because there are few developments in the Bahamas without imported skills. That may change one day, but not for a long time. For lack of them, businesses are collapsing. Half-built buildings are being put up for sale by mortgagees. Unemployment is rising because of the upsurge of extreme black nationalism being operated by extreme and inexperienced politicians.
What were the people of Abaco to do? In 1971 they petitioned Her Majesty to remain a colony of the Crown and that petition was signed by a considerable majority of the electors of Abaco. Of

course, a counter-petition was quickly whipped up—and there are ways of whipping things up under a PLP Government.
I could quote letters from an ex-Governor to my right hon. Friend telling him in so many words that if he thinks the safeguards in the constitution for human rights with the sanction of the courts behind them will be of any value in the Bahamas, he is deceiving himself. That is so and I am afraid that we have had experience of that in certain other newly-independent countries where the spirit of nationalism has become established.
The petition went through the usual channels by the Governor, not to the Queen but to the Department of State concerned, and sank into the sand. That is all that has been heard of it. That is one sadness of our present state. People all round the world think that they can petition the Queen and that it means something, but we know that it does not and that one is merely presenting one's case to the Government for the time being.
The Government rate administrative tidiness highly and believe that because this has been an entity for a long time it should remain an entity. I took down my right hon. Friend's words. He called this an archipelago of 700 islands—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: 700 miles.

Mr. Bell: —700 miles long, widely distant from each other. These archipelago States of 700 miles length of small islands, widely distant from each other are artificial units to start with and if strains and stresses also occur and one has feelings, as one has in Abaco, one is paying too high a price for administrative tidiness. I understand the position of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues. They say that we are giving independence to this new unit and ask what is the point of starting by offending Mr. Pindling, who is the political leader, just for the sake of these islanders who have this somewhat old-fashioned view?
That is the tidy answer, but I must tell him I can only use my own judgment in this. According to what they told me, my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State, and what they said on the public broadcasts in Britain and in the Press,


they feel so strongly about this that if they cannot remain British by constitutional consent they will fight to remain British. I warn my right hon. Friend that he will have another but bigger Anguilla on his hands if in the Bahamas things turn out as one greatly fears they will if, and as the right hon. Member for Kettering says, the Crown fades out.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I have listened carefully to my hon. and learned Friend's argument that Abaco should be a Crown Colony and separate from the independent archipelago. What is the population of Abaco? What proportion is that population of the total population of the Bahamas? What is the position of the island in relation to the other islands of the Bahamas?

Mr. Bell: I did mention that the proportion is 4 per cent, of the population of the Bahamas. I did not give the other information because I am conscious that this is a Second Reading debate and we are not in Committee. The distance by sea from the nearest point of Abaco to the nearest point of New Providence is 50 miles. The island is north of New Providence and it and Grand Bahama are between Florida and Nassau. Abaco is on the deep water channel from the American mainland to Nassau. That is its geographical disposition.
I am here making a Second Reading speech. I shall want to put the case in Committee and ask the Committee to vote on it. I regard this as important matter which must come to a vote, but not now. I will conclude with a quotation from what one of the representatives whom I introduced to the Foreign Secretary said:
Abaco, with its homogeneous, long-settled population, its size, its fertility, its abundant water, its deep water potentialities and its political will will never accept subordination to the strident black nationalism and politics of intrigue and financial venality which are now dominant in Nassau.
There is nothing inside a union of the Bahama islands that the inhabitants of Abaco can do to reverse or even influence this. They are hopelessly outnumbered. They do not want the contamination to spread to Abaco. They do not want to be trapped in a society where all is black militant politics and everything comes second to these politics.
Now, at this moment, when some of the Bahama islands are seeking to leave the

British jurisdiction, we earnestly address to Her Majesty's Ministers on behalf of ourselves and those who could not come with us our application to remain within British jurisdiction and protection, and to develop our island in our own way. It has been said by some that responsible dissent never succeeds. We pray that this is not so and that our petition to become and remain a Crown Colony will be granted.
Those are words that command deep respect. These people are British to the core and they want to remain British by the processes of the British constitution. I hope that we shall let them do that and not force them to take violent measures to remain with us.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said that he would inject a note of dissent into the debate and he has done so. However, it was right that his speech should have been made in view of the feelings which have been expressed in Abaco and the importance of the Government, while they remain responsible for the Bahamas, doing everything possible to remove dissension and to restore the spirit of harmony which we hope will characterise the granting of independence to the Bahamas.
I detected in the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks some lack of proportion. He admitted to the House that a very small number of people were involved in this dissent—some 4½ per cent, of the population of the Bahamas as a whole. But he did not advert, as he might have done, to the fact that in the latest elections in the Bahamas, both the Official Opposition and the Government were united in agreeing that independence should be given to the Bahamas. The only difference between the two parties has at all times been over the speed with which independence should be achieved.
At the constitutional conference there was unanimous agreement on the terms on which independence was to be granted. There was no dissenting vote in the resolution passed by the Parliament of the Bahamas prior to the conference and subsequently the Government's majority has been increased at a further election. The democratic will of the people of the Bahamas has been as clearly expressed in this matter as it could have been.

Mr. Ronald Bell: There was no dissenting vote—perhaps it was felt unwise to walk out, but in some of these Legislatures that is the form of protest used. As for the attitude of the Opposition, that is set out in the White Paper, page 18, where the leader of the Free National Movement said:
As I am sure all of us here are aware, the Free National Movement has the support of 40 per cent, of the Bahamians who voted in the recent elections, a 40 per cent, who feel that independence for our Commonwealth at this time is both unnecessary and unwise.
As to why they did not vote as an Opposition, the Leader of the Bahama Opposition said:
Nevertheless, we recognise the necessity for a responsible opposition realistically to accept the declaration of a majority of the Bahamian electorate, albeit only a marginal not an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman will concede that what was at issue was the timing of independence and not the fact of independence— indeed that is set out in the White Paper. I must also take issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his description of the Government of the Bahamas as representative of a virulent black nationalism. Those are most unfortunate and ill-chosen words to describe a Government who have demonstrated in their years of office moderation and considerable sensitivity in their dealings with the opposition internally but also in their dealings with Her Majesty's Government and in their discussions, following the constitutional conference with the Government of the United States.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that economic prosperity in the islands was threatened by this virulent black nationalism of which he spoke, but this description has too often been raised in the past in the Caribbean context as a cover for the protection of external interests in the islands—external capitalist interests which in the Bahamas have not always been in the interests of the islands. The Freeport scandal, of which the hon. and learned Member will be aware, was the very reason for the coming to office of the present Prime Minister. That scandal revealed that there was virtually a state within a state controlled by the Mafia. These are the facts. Land was being sold off at £1 an acre to people who were controlling not only the

revenues of the gambling activities there, but even immigration into the island. The Government of Mr. Pindling was first elected to office to end this scandalous situation, which was almost universally recognised as such.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What my hon. Friend says is obviously true, but surely this was largely confined to New Providence and not related to Abaco. Has my hon. Friend any evidence that the gambling elements were rife in Abaco?

Mr. Maclennan: No. but I should like to deal with what is behind the Abaco objections before concluding my remarks. I wanted to establish first that the overwhelming support of the people of the Bahamas has been given to independence and I believe that on 10th July the celebrations will be shared with complete unanimity by the political parties.
The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) concerned the attitude of the people of Abaco to the granting of independence. It is certainly possible to view their affairs as the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South did. That is not a wholly objective view, even of the situation in Abaco. But there is no unanimity on that island about the proper course for the British Government and the Government of the Bahamas to take.
It will be recalled that a number of representatives of the island of Abaco made official approaches to Her Majesty's Government at the time of the constitutional discussions in which the Minister was involved. At that time a leading spokesman of the people of that island was a certain Captain Leonard Thompson. Along with Mr. Errington Watkins, sole Member of Parliament for the island of Abaco, they made their representations. After the decision of Her Majesty's Government not to countenance fragmentation of the Bahamas, Captain Thompson withdrew his support from the Free Abaconian Group and he appears not to see eye to eye with the remaining leaders of the Group. However, I cannot speak from personal knowledge on that matter. Perhaps the Minister has information which he can give us.
Captain Thompson is one of the most influential people on Abaco. He is one


of the largest land and property owners there and it is therefore wrong to assume that there is unanimity of view on the island about the future.
What is extremely unattractive about the situation, and what I regret having to raise in view of the rosy picture which the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South has painted about the sweetness and light on Abaco, are the unusual representatives who have appeared in this country as spokesmen for the secessionist movement. Two who have come here appear to have strong American connections. I understand that at least one of them is an American citizen. They are Mr. Edwin Marger and Mr. Mitchell Wer Bell—no relative, I presume, of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South—who have come to London to make publicity for the Abaco cause.
These two men have given voice to what one can only call sinister sentiments. One of them said that he had come
… looking for special personnel for a special situation.
When his son, back on the island, was asked whether his father was looking for mercenaries in this country, he said, "Yes that is so. That is our way". That in itself is a somewhat sinister declaration, but it is conceivable and one must hope that these are threats that will not be carried out. But Her Majesty's Government are presumably well aware of these facts and are watching that situation with considerable attention.
Who is backing these people, outside the island of Abaco? The Bahamas have a long history of involvement with nearby countries—Cuba, Haiti and, more recently, Florida. The strategic importance of the Bahamas is undeniable, lying as they do 100 miles off the coast of Florida, 50 miles west of Cuba and close to Haiti. The United States Government are interested in the political development there and I understand from reports which have appeared in the Press that Her Majesty's Government have made some inquiries of the State Department about the activities of certain American citizens "operating", if I may use that euphemistic term, in Abaco.
If the Minister would prefer not to disclose—I would understand this—the full extent of these consultations tonight, I

have no doubt that he will seek to keep hon. Members informed about the contacts which are developing between the Government and the United States Government on this question.
The United States at present has important military facilities, including a military tracking station, in the Bahamas and an underwater testing station which they share with us. This, and the question of the future territorial limits of the sea after independence, make the future government of the Bahamas a matter of some interest to the State Department and the Pentagon. It would therefore be of interest to know whether the Government have received any assurances from the United States Government that they will not be involved, even paternalistic-ally, in any activities which might unsettle the political situation. I know that it is the wish of the Government of Mr. Pindling to establish the closest and most friendly links with the United States, and his visit gave testimony to that.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not correct that on a ceremonial occasion during that visit Mr. Pindling said to his host, the Vice President of the United States, that he hoped that the United States would be as generous in receiving the refugees from his, Mr. Pindling's, regime as the Bahamas had been in the past in receiving refugees from the United States.

Mr. Maclennan: I have not seen a report of that statement. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have seen it, but in any case I do not know what weight should be given to it.
After the constitutional conference in December, Her Majesty's Government said that it was their intention to have discussions with the Government of the Bahamas about future defence arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) said that he did not wish tonight to press the Government about the content of those discussions, but I think that the House will want to know, certainly before 10th July, something of their content, and something about the future of the bases to which I referred.
In the light of our continuing interest in the social and economic prosperity of the Bahamas, we are also extremely interested to learn of the financial arrangements that will be worked out in some


detail between the Government and the Government of the Bahamas. I hope that in Committee we shall hear something more about that.
The Government of the Bahamas, in their approach to independence, are faced with considerable problems, both in their domestic and their external relations. The systems of government which prevail in the countries contiguous to the Bahamas are not entirely similar to the longstanding parliamentary system in those islands. Indeed, there are people from those other countries who have sought refuge, moved to, lived in and had their being freely in the Bahamas. The problem of relations with neighbours may well be resolved, and we hope that it will be.
It will be interesting to know, and perhaps the Minister can tell us, whether any approaches have been made to the Organisation of American States, or are likely to be made to it, as that organisation may in time help to remove some of the difficulties that could arise.
The internal and social conditions in the Bahamas are not entirely satisfactory, but one is impressed by the zeal and sense of purpose of the Government in seeking to tackle them, and particularly in improving the health and education of the people of the islands. I think that what one must beware of is assuming that a desire to improve the living standards of the people by imposing taxation of the kind that would be normal in most democratic countries must be regarded as in some way an expression of what the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, referred to as virulent black nationalism. That slogan has scared off tourists, too. We in this country who have had experience of these things should recognise the facts as they are and realise that the Government are anxious to foster investment and tourism.
I conclude by wishing the Government of the Bahamas and all the people of those islands well in the years ahead following the granting by this Parliament of independence and their achievement of that goal on 10th July.

11.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on highlighting some of

the grave reservations which I have on the Bill. I had earlier approached it with a completely open mind. Having no knowledge of the Bahamas, my first contact with the problem came when the gentleman mentioned by the hon. Member approached me to ask for my advice on security in terms of secession by Abaco. I must, however, say that I am an unpaid non-combatant mercenary in that sense. I merely listened to people in London and tried to draw some conclusions.
I do not wish to make a long speech, because there will be plenty of time for that in Committee, but it would help a great deal tonight if my noble Friend the Minister of State in replying to the debate could give some of the answers which have been asked for by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
From what I can see, we have established only that on 10th July some 300-odd years of British rule will end. The facts about how and why it is ending, or certainly the interpretation of those facts, seem to be contradictory.
It is right to say that Bahamian prosperity rests on the flimsy structure of tourism, but we should also add that it is a great tax haven, and a tax haven rests on the confidence of foreign businessmen. It has been apparent in everything that Mr. Pindling has said—I have never met him but I have read a great deal of what he has said—that he appreciates these facts strongly. There is also no doubt, however, that confidence is departing. For example the Cayman Islands, as we know from recent notoriety, are already absorbing much of the investment in the Caribbean.
I cannot comment on the citizen provisions because I cannot at present understand them, and I was glad and delighted when my noble Friend said that they were very complicated. But I can obviously comment, as anyone with common sense could, on the immigration policy which is introducing work permits, because this is basically a controversial matter. I gather that these permits and the idea behind them are particularly obnoxious to the democratically-minded Abacon-ians. For that reason if for no other, we


should take a deep interest in the citizenship background.
I have been told that Abaco, with a large mixed population, wished to retain Crown Colony status, and there is a strong element which threatens to secede on independence. I do not want to over-dramatise in an area which lends itself to the most marvellous romanticism— we could all get carried away, as many have been already—but perhaps Her Majesty's Government are avoiding facing a Rhodesian UDI or an Anguillan-type situation but may be leaving exactly that for the newly-emergent Bahamas Commonwealth.
Undoubtedly the attitudes, as we have heard tonight, do not seem to be racial. Mr. Errington Watkins, for example, is not white-skinned, if that is the right phrase to use without wishing to cause offence, which I do not. In any event, Abaco is a racially mixed country, but there are fears of a dictatorship. Some of the long-term motives which have been expressed by Mr. Pindling's satellites are very frightening to anyone even as far away as here, let alone someone living on his own doorstep.
The Abaconians have claimed, and have produced a good written case saying, that with proper planning and effective management their island is capable of developing a sound agricultural base, greatly increased tourist trade and effective local industries. It sounds like something out of a Liberal Party pamphlet. I am sorry to interrupt the two occupants of the Liberal Bench, because I know that they have important things to talk about.
I see the case as one of the protection of minorities combined with a future security problem.

Mr. Thorpe: I did not intend any discourtesy. I was merely commenting to my colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), that there are certain hon. Members even in this House who, without being in office, can terrify one by their statements.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I am delighted by that intervention from one so well-versed.
There has been a suggestion that Her Majesty's Government should consider

Resolution No. 1514 of the United Nations, which says:
Any Colony, however small, however unready, has the right to instant independence.
This has been put forward by the Abaconians who threaten to secede. But if Her Majesty's Government leave without respect for the principle of independence, I believe that they have a moral responsibility for any future security problems which arise out of that secession. I say this advisedly again because I was approached privately for advice to the secessionists on security issues.

Lord Balniel: Was my hon. and gallant Friend approached by an Abaconian or someone of another nationality?

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I was approached by the two gentlemen referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. He referred to Mr. Mitchell Wer Bell III as a member of an organisation. It threw me somewhat into confusion when it was hinted that he might be a relative of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), because he could have been a relative both of myself and my hon. and learned Friend. But I assure the House that Mr. Mitchell Wer Bell III does exist. He is a well-known American arms manufacturer. His credentials have been well-expressed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The other gentleman was Mr. Hall, an Abaconian, whose family has lived there for 200 years.
There is no doubt that when people talk in rather wild terms one immediately takes a responsible attitude. I have counselled restraint and constitutional moves for secession after independence, if that is what they think they are going to get. It would be unrealistic to think of anyone in this country interfering in that way between now and 10th July.
It is also fair to warn hon. Members of the strength and determination and energy of the organisation of the Abaconians who are talking about secession. They consider that they have an economic, administrative and financial case for Abaconion independence, and who am I to say that they have not?
It is obvious that it is too late to consider Crown Colony status on the basis of the island's viability as a self-sustaining economic unit, but I would like to hear whether my right hon. Friend believes that the mood in the Bahamas is as tense and explosive as some people would have us believe. If it is, then this Bill is not a tidy ending to another chapter in the great colonial rundown which so many of us have spent our lives conducting, but may be a dangerous fuse for a situation where history might record that lack of political will on the part of Her Majesty's Government left misery in its wake.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: This debate has developed in a somewhat different way from what one might have expected having heard the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), whose speeches were, perhaps predictably and rightly, primarily directed at wishing the new Bahaman Commonwealth all prosperity in its independence. Subsequent speakers have rather changed the direction of the debate. The Liberal Party welcomes the introduction of the Bill and we hope very much that the future of the Bahamas will be stable and prosperous.
I do not want to go into detail because the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made a quite remarkably long speech. I do not wish to become embroiled in the details. But if my memory serves me right, I think he was more than a little harsh on the question of Freeport. As I remember it, the Hawksbill Creek Agreement—a romantic-sounding name—was made with the then elected Government and it was as a consequence of that that we had the immigration agreement which was directed primarily at enabling skilled technicians to come in to build the deep water harbour, which has played such an important part in the development of the economy of the Bahamas.
We must get the question of Abaco into perspective. One figure that has not been quoted is the population, which is 6,500. That is just about the same size as the population of the Isle of Skye, in my constituency. From the way in which the hon. and gallant Member for Aber-

deenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) was talking one would think that we were dealing with a large-scale problem of security, such as in the case of Rhodesia and UDI.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: A more appropriate comparison might have been between the number of people involved in the IRA as a proportion of the number of Roman Catholics in Ulster.

Mr. Johnston: That is a rather alarming parallel.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: All parallels are.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman is being very tolerant in giving way. Another parallel might be Anguilla. We are dealing with a much larger population than that of Anguilla.

Mr. Johnston: That parallel would be a more reasonable one.
The main point about Abaco is its size. Even if there were substantial, soundly-based reasons for treating it in a different way—because we accept enclaves in various parts of the world as the flotsam and jetsam of imperial conquest—it would be extremely difficult to conceive of a fair argument for treating an island so small and so far away in such a different fashion.
The second question about Abaco is the question of the justification of this proposal. I hope that the Minister will refer to that. Many charges and countercharges have been made across the Floor of the House. It seems to boil down to the question of colour. I am not talking about the rights and wrongs of that, because we all know that it is a matter of people's feelings. I recall that in The Guardian last December the leader of the Abaconian independence movement said that he had in mind that one of the functions that Abaco, treated in a different way, would fulfil, would be as an escape route for non-blacks. That ties in with what the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has been saying about the nature of the Government, as he alleges, in the Bahamas.
The hon. and learned Member is being less than fair to the Prime Minister of the Bahamas. It is true that some of his


associates and his Ministers and up-and-coming politicians have expressed themselves in somewhat virulent language, from time to time. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) alarms some people in this country a great deal, yet he is hardly likely to lead a revolution from the barricades. We must get statements of this kind into a degree of proportion and balance them against the way in which the Government of the Bahamas have behaved in recent years, which does not lend support to the fears enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South. In the conduct of affairs in recent years, I do not think that there is evidence of repression. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman was not specific, in what he said there was an undercurrent of, "This is what we fear will happen"—

Mr, Ronald Bell: I was not specific, because I did not wish to detain the House with what I regard as Committee points in a Second Reading debate. But I claim to have particulars. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, I shall be happy to send him photo-copies.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: There is considerable evidence that Mr. Pindling could easily start to take over, by expropriation and confiscation, the estates of people who have spent many years in the Bahamas. The people of the Bahamas have no one generic make-up. There is nothing to suppose that there is any body of people there who are entitled to have sovereign control in the sense that they are English, Irish or Gaelic. There is a great deal of evidence that we may face considerable problems of total expropriation or confiscation of estates if we go by recent behaviour and if Mr. Pindling behaves as other dictators have in recent years.

Mr. Johnston: That is grossly unfair. Anyone can look into the future and call forth all kinds of apocalypses, saying that this, that or the other may happen, expropriation may take place and dictatorships may rise up. I say that on the evidence of Mr. Pindling's conduct as Prime Minister in the existing situation there is no justification for wild allegations of that kind, nor are they appropriate in this debate.
We have to face the fact that, whenever and wherever independence is granted, especially to bits of country which are populated by a mixture of people from a mixture of places, inevitably there will be certain stresses and strains. Freedom has to do with stresses and strains most of the time.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government are right to introduce this Bill now, and from this bench the Liberal Party will support what they seek to do. I repeat that we wish the independent State of the Bahamas every success in the future.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: In a powerful speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) drew attention to some of the internal problems which may face the Bahamas on independence. However, I wish to follow more in the direction of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) by referring to some of the external problems that the Bahamas may face as well.
Some years ago, I remember when the soldiers of the Parachute Regiment were landed in Anguilla stories were put about concerning the heavy involvement of the Mafia in that small island. So far as I know, there was no basis for the belief that the Mafia was up to evil doings, and there never seemed to be any reason in practice why the Mafia should interest itself in that small Caribbean Island.
The situation is very different in the Bahamas. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Bahamas has often in the past been a haven for pirates and smugglers. Today, piracy can wear a more sophisticated dress. There can be no doubt that if the Mafia could secure a compliant Government in the Bahamas the prize would be very great indeed.
There can also be no doubt that the financial resources of the American underworld and, indeed, its physical fire power are substantially greater than anything that the Government of the Bahamas can hope to deploy. It also seems inevitable, if there is a move by American criminal interests in the Bahamas, that the CIA should be interested.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that he hoped that


America would take a "hands off" attitude. It seems inevitable that, with this broad band of islands on the doorstep of one of the richest cities of the United States, the Americans are bound to take the closest interest in the internal happenings of the Bahamas.
In passing the Bill we may not be increasing the real amount of freedom that we are offering to the people of the Bahamas. In view of the special dangers that they face on the threshold of independence, I wish that, even at this late hour, the Government would consider some kind of direct referendum in the islands, particularly in Abaco, after a properly conducted campaign to see that the alternatives and the dangers were put to the people. I cannot think that we will look back with pride and pleasure on this evening if, through our good will, we merely pass a measure which indirectly leads to the establishment of the first independent Mafia state.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I came into the Chamber some while ago and for quite a long time sat beyond the Bar not intending to take part in the debate, but, as I sat, I learned a great deal and became rather concerned as the result of what I heard. I therefore felt that I should say a few words.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said that the population of Abaco was 6,500. I intended to intervene at that stage and ask whether he thought that in no circumstances should the citizens of the Isle of Skye have a right to self-determination and to look after their own affairs. This point worries me, because nobody has dealt with it.
If we have an artificial political creation, like the Bahamas, who dares to say that one group of people living on one of the islands forming part of that artificial political creation have no right, if they so wish, to remain citizens of the British Crown and no right to remain loyal to their sovereign?
It may well be that there is legitimate argument tonight as to whether there is a true overwhelming majority in Abaco to contract out of these proposed arrangements. That is one matter, I do not know where the truth lies concerning it. Un-

like other hon. Members, I have not had an opportunity of studying the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Bahamas as an artificial creation. He must be aware that this country, like the Bahamas, is an archipelago of islands whose unity is forged by history. Two hundred years of being regarded as an entity is scarcely an artificial creation.

Mr. Waddington: Yet I have heard from a number of hon. Members about the different characteristics of different parts of this archipelago, and about the different characteristics of the people who occupy Abaco as compared with the citizens of other islands in the archipelago.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Following exactly what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, surely this applies exactly and precisely to the United Kingdom, where the individual parts have different characteristics, but it is not regarded as an artificial political creation.

Mr. Waddington: That brings me back to the point I was making about the island of Skye. I would not say that in no circumstances I would refuse to allow to parts of the British Isles the right to secede if the stresses and strains between the different parts of the British Isles became so great that it was far healthier that those parts should be allowed to secede than that they should be kept together against their will.
All I am posing is the question whether we are right to assume that, simply because Abaco is a part of the Bahamas, it must take part in this secession from the allegiance to the British Crown, even though there is apparently one island in that archipelago the majority of the citizens of which wish to remain citizens of the Crown and loyal to the Crown.
I have not studied this subject, but I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to deal with this matter. At present I am far from convinced that we are entitled to assume that an island such as Abaco must join in the secessionist movement and must leave allegiance to the Crown whether or not it likes to do so. We are storing up a great deal of trouble for ourselves if we make this bland assumption.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. W, R. Rees-Davies: I for one, although I am alone, am totally opposed to the Bill. I want to say why and what the background to it is.
First, my father and both of my uncles, and many other members of my family, were associated with the Government of the Bahamas over a great many years. My father left this House and went to the Bahamas in the early part of this century, and he had the pleasure of responsibility out there.
I want to say something about the Bahamas. Very few people seem to know very much about the subject before us tonight. First, this man Pindling, who at present is in control, is another of those potential dictators, of whom we have had far too many in recent years. He is just typical of what we are seeing in Africa and in other parts of the world. There is no right for him to speak for the Bahamas, any more than there is a right for any other of these black people to speak for them.
The Bahamas has always been an area which has no particular racial control. The people who went there and developed the Bahamas were subjects of this country. They were loyal people who belonged to England. They were loyal to the monarch of this country. That is what built up the power of that island. The money which it has has developed entirely because of an understanding of the worth of Britain. It has nothing to do with a man like Pindling. Does the House imagine that anyone in that part of the world respects a man like Pindling? Go and ask them. They are frightened of him.

Mr. Ronald Bell: He is a Jamaican.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes. He is nothing to do with the Bahamas. The House does not understand this matter any more than it understands Bermuda or Abaco. Abaco is twice the size with a population of 6,500. Why should Abaco be told what to do by Pindling? Absolute rubbish!
I wrote to the Government some months ago and asked them to pay some attention to this matter. They have done nothing about it. All that has happened is that a few people in the Bahamas have

passed a vote saying that they want to be independent. It is no bigger than the Isle of Wight and it has a smaller population. We are talking about an island with a population of a few thousand. Here we are talking pompously about the independence of a new country. Does the House want the Bahamas to be represented at the United Nations? What is the House talking about? Does the House wish to see it represented at the United Nations and to have the same right of vote as Great Britain or the United States or Canada? When will the House wake up? I have heard nothing like it.
A member of my regiment was murdered in Bermuda. He was murdered by a lot of scoundrels who want to throw us out. What does this country want to do? Go and ask our Front Bench. Yet we talk about another lot of independence. We will hear in another few months that Bermuda will be offered to become an independent country. I have never heard such nonsense in my life.
I was born in Hong Kong where my father was chief justice. I know Hong Kong from A to Z. Will Hong Kong be offered independence just because a small break-away team of Chinese want independence? Over my dead body!
It is high time that this country began to realise what constitutes a country and its ties. It is a deep-seated and genuine belief in the creation of a country which is worth while. There is no country in the Bahamas, and there never was. There are no ties. A lot of slaves were taken there to look after the people who brought them there. What do we think they want to do?
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was right. We are playing into the hands of a small number of criminals who, if they get the chance, will move in and bribe some of the coloured people who, as anyone who really knows the country will understand, are capable of being bribed. They will take over by bribery and create a situation which is not a country at all.
It is about time that we began to be not quite so stupid. They started back in the Sudan. Look what they did there. I have listened until I am sick and tired of hearing it. People who have any


knowledge or who have any deep and long understanding of this part of the world are just shouldered aside—" Oh, I am very sorry, old boy, but it is going this way. There is nothing we can do about it because they have passed a vote."
Are we so namby pamby that, because a small group of people on an island have passed a vote by a majority because they have been got at by others, we should approve this? Look at the Opposition Front Bench. What does the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) know about the Bahamas? He led some deputation there. Does he understand the background? Does he realise that none of those people were natives of the Bahamas; they were all brought there? The people who created and built up the Bahamas were people from this country and many of them still hold interests in that part of the world. That is a fact.
Do we imagine that they want to be sold down the river to some people who cannot get majority rule? That is not how islands are run. Democracy does not operate in that fashion. It does not work that way any more than does the Dame of Sark. We have independence in the Isle of Man, which is a small island. I suppose we will go on in this headlong way. It will not succeed.
There is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the people in the Bahamas, to ensure that their goods will not be confiscated, their estates taken over. Mark my words this will happen. I asked for this safeguard. There is nothing to ensure that they will not find themselves thrown out after having built up and developed the island.
I hope we will not allow this to happen in Bermuda. As for Abaco, all I can say is that I hope that the people of Abaco will send, one and all, a united petition to the Queen and ask her to act. If I have to resign the Whip, God help me, I will rather than let down a group of people and leave them in the hands of a man like Pindling, whom no one has the right to respect on the views that he has vouchsafed over recent years. Let him read this and let him understand that there may be an awful lot of weak and flabby people in this country but there are one or two who are prepared to go out there and oppose him and get others

to oppose him. There are still one or two of us left here who feel bitterly about the way our Government are behaving They have adopted an extraordinary attitude.
This should never have been done. It was sneaked through and we knew nothing about it. It was only at the last moment that we knew that these negotiations were taking place, based upon a vote in an area which has absolutely no claim to be an independent country, any more than the island of Corfu, given by this country many years ago to Greece, any more than other small islands in the Hebrides, any more than other islands all over the world. They are all small islands. Do not make them into countries.
If we do we will merely debase the whole system of government. They have not the staff, the people to enable them to operate a system of independence. They need, and ought to be proud of, the magnificent colonial service that has served them for many years. What do we wish to do? Destroy the people who have built up one of the most successful tourist areas, an area which is of the greatest importance to Britain? It is part of something which has made Britain shine in the West Indies.
People want to destroy it all because of a total lack of understanding of what really matters in life. It is not method of government, but it is some sense of loyalty to the people who built up an area, an island, a status, a way of life which all the word enjoyed in the West Indies. Now it is to be handed over so that a small group of people can be subverted by the American way of life, probably by those who can afford to buy them up and sell it down so that in a short space of time one will find it totally destroyed.

12.6 a.m.

Lord Balniel: During my introduction of the Bill I explained to the best of my ability the value of the Bill and the importance attached to it in the Bahamas and by Her Majesty's Government. I said that at the end of the debate I should try to answer as many of the questions raised in debate as I could.
Some of the points raised can most easily be dealt with in Committee.


Amendments will be put down, I understand, by some hon. Members and some of the more detailed points can be dealt with in Committee.
However, the course of the debate has demonstrated that the Commonwealth of Bahamas, on achieving independence, will be faced with internal and external problems which have been referred to by various hon. Members and to which I shall try to refer. The pleasant thing is that, with the notable exception of the last speech by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and perhaps the reservations expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), the Bill has been welcomed.
I am bound to say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet that he puts too little value on the vote in the Bahamas Parliament under the constitution approved by Her Majesty's Government in the past. The vote, after 200 years of parliamentary history, is something of great value and is enormously appreciated by the people of the Bahamas.
Although in speaking he apparently claims great knowledge, when he says that this Bill is being sneaked through the House of Commons, he is demonstrating an incredible ignorance of the situation.
The constitutional conference was a successor conference to the one held under the chairmanship of the previous Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Shepherd. It was then forecast that a further conference would be held which would result in an independence constitution. This independence constitution, at the unanimous wishes of the political parties participating, was followed by a White Paper laid before this House, so it is neither just nor correct to imply that this Bill, of considerable constitutional importance to the Bahamians, is being sneaked through.
With that exception, the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), speaking on

behalf of the Liberal Party, and those hon. Members who expressed reservations about different aspects, have all expressed the hope that the move towards independence in the whole Bahamas will bring prosperity and good fortune to the people of Bahamas.
In essence, the speeches which have contributed to the debate, especially those on behalf of the political parties in this House, will give great pleasure when they are read in the Bahamas. The right hon. Member for Caernarvon and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) both spoke of the fundamental rights and asked how they will be entrenched. One must accept that when one grants a constitution and a country becomes independent there is always the possibility that the constitution will be overthrown, that dictatorial governments may be established and that the wishes expressed in the constitution can be destroyed. We see that happening not only in far distant countries but in countries close to our own.
Paragraph 12 of the White Paper sets out the fundamental rights which all hon. Members will regard as being of immense importance, rights which it is correct to include in a constitution. Paragraph 34 of the White Paper describes the provisions relating to the legal force of the constitution, citizenship, the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, the establishment of Parliament, its sessions, prorogation and dissolution, the appointment of senators, the determination of the membership of the House of Assembly, the power to make laws and many other fundamental rights which have been especially entrenched in the constitution. They can be amended only if an affirmative vote carried by each House of the Legislature is carried by a three-quarters majority followed by approval of the amendments by a simple majority of the electorate in a referendum. I can think of no country in the world which has those fundamental rights so firmly entrenched in its constitution.
One can in one's mind envisage the possibility of the constitution being torn up, but that is not a view I share. That is not the impression of those who are living in the Bahamas. Although one has criticisms of certain aspects of the


Bahamas Government's conduct, in general it commands the support of the people in the Bahamas.
The right hon. Member for Caernarvon asked whether the discussions on the constitution had begun and what state they had reached——

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I asked about the way in which discussions—which it has been promised will take place before 10th July—on the financial and defence questions were proceeding. I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman on that tonight. I only want to ascertain whether they are proceeding reasonably smoothly.

Lord Balniel: I will certainly deal with the defence aspects which were raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The discussions on the constitution have now been completed and final drafting is in process of completion.
The right hon. Member for Caernarvon also asked whether we shall sponsor Bahamas' membership of the United Nations. In spite of the views of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet, we will sponsor the United Nations membership of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. It would not by any means be the smallest member of the United Nations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir D. Dodds-Parker), who has had a long association in the service and development of the Commonwealth, in his political capacity as a Member of the House warmly welcomed the Bill. So did the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). But I could not quite follow his arguments regretting that Bahamas is anxious to remain a monarchy. I can see that in the eyes of some people the picture of the Queen might be misleading, but I believe that this desire to be associated with the monarchy is a desire that is warmly and strongly felt. In technical terms the Government of the Bahamas and the United Kingdom have agreed that on independence diplomatic relations will be established between the Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and the United Kingdom Government and that a High Commission will be opened in London and Nassau.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) was suggesting that it would

be a better thing if the present control in the Bahamas came clean, and he suggested that they should be a republic now rather than that they should hide behind the hypocrisy that they are pretending to be in favour of a monarchy. Would my hon. Friend recognise the fact that Mr. Pindling and company do not want to be any part of the monarchy, but realise that there is a large number in the Bahamas who are sympathetic to the monarchy and who think that it is a good thing to try to pretend they are in favour of the monarchy at this stage?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend is entitled to his own views, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that I do not share them.

Sir G. de Freitas: Since I have now been brought into this discussion, perhaps I may repeat the point I sought to make, which is simply this. I feel that if a country is independent, it should be seen by its citizens to be independent. I hoped that as soon as possible the Bahamas would not have pictures of the Queen because it confuses people and makes them believe that we in this country still have control in some way or other over what is done. I do not agree with the extreme views put forward by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but let us make it clear that independence means independence. I hope it will be made clear to the Bahamians that as soon as possible they will remain, as is to be hoped, inside the Commonwealth but that they will become not only an independent country but a republic.

Lord Balniel: If they had wished to become a republic, they would have asked to become a republic. I see the danger of confusion in the minds of simple people, but the wish of the elected representatives of the people of the Bahamas was that they should remain with the monarchy. In those circumstances it was right for Her Majesty's Government to accept the wish, but I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's point.
I turn to a major part of this debate, namely the matter initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckingham, South. If there is concern about an aspect of the Bill or about the future of a people or island, then it is right that it should be voiced in the House of


Commons—and it could not have been more effectively advocated by my hon. and learned Friend. Equally, we had a balancing argument from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
The motion tabled by my hon. and learned Friend which has not been called stated,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which would confer full independence upon the Bahamas without declaring the provisions of the constitution upon which independence would be granted …
This is the absolutely normal process of the movement of a country towards independence. When an independence Bill is considered by Parliament the normal practice is for Parliament to have before it only the terms of the conference report. Except where special provision is made for laying an order prior to submission to Her Majesty in Council, no precedent has been traced where the independence constitution has been submitted to the scrutiny of Parliament before being submitted to the Queen for her pleasure. There is absolutely nothing peculiar about the procedure that we are adopting. It was, for instance adopted in regard to the independence Bills for Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Jamaica, Tanganyika, Barbados, Guyana, Trinidad, Mauritius and Fiji, just to mention a few examples.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I accept that as true, and, in spite of all the recent precedents, in those cases there was no serious controversy as to the form of the constitution. As for my reasoned amendment, it should be read to include the reference about whether a unitary or federal constitution is preferred. The difficulty is that, whatever this House may think about it, there is nothing that we can do about it. If we were to agree that there should be independence but that it should be with a federal system we would be procedurally in a position where we could no nothing about it.

Lord Balniel: It is always open to my hon. and learned Friend to put down a substantive motion which would enable the issue to be debated. I am sure that his ingenious ability to the House of Commons would enable him to do that.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my hon. and learned Friend not know that a substan-

tive motion of that kind would need a star against it on the Order Paper before it had a chance of being debated?

Lord Balniel: Frankly, I did not know that, but I take my hon. and learned Friend's word for it. The House is entitled to debate the matter on a substantive motion. I wish, however, to deal with my hon. and learned Friend's main points about the issue of the Abaco Islands. The position is as I said in my opening remarks. In the election of September 1972 the Government party campaigned on a platform of early independence and it won 29 out of the 38 seats in the House of Assembly. It won 60 per cent. of the votes cast. Abaco has two Members of Parliament. One of them is a member of the Progressive Liberal Party, which is led by Mr. Pindling, so he specifically stood on the issue of early independence. The other Member of Parliament is a member of the Opposition Free National Movement, Mr. Isaac's party, which was represented at the independence conference.
The Bahamas want independence. A resolution was passed in both Houses of the Bahamian Parliament without a dissenting vote although one member abstained in the vote, that independence should be granted. Abaco has been part of the Bahamas for 200 years. We have always treated it and administered it and governed it as an integral part of the whole. The governing party, the PLP, regards Abaco as an integral part of the Bahamas. The Opposition party led by Mr. Isaacs regards Abaco as an integral part of the Bahamas. No major political party in the Bahamas supports the idea of Abaco seceding. Government representatives, a delegation of elected representatives, and the elected Opposition representatives attended the conference. They unanimously agreed the report.
It has been argued during the course of the debate that Abaco has a geographical claim to separate treatment because it is some 50 miles away from Nassau, the capital of the Bahamas. The argument can be exaggerated. The Bahamas consist of 700 islands and atolls. Of these, some 22 are inhabited and many of them are much further away from Nassau than is Abaco. In general terms, what I think we want to achieve in the Caribbean is not greater fragmentation but greater cohesion.
Some hon. Members have created the impression that the inhabitants of Abaco unanimously or nearly unanimously desire a continuation of colonial status. This is very misleading. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South mentioned the Greater Abaco Council which he accompanied to London to discuss the matter with me. That Council did not consist of elected representatives of Abaco, although it did contain one Member of Parliament. The election of the other person who attended was in dispute and he decided not to follow it up, so he was not elected. They were appointed—not that there is anything wrong with that—and they put their views forward at the same time as the constitutional conference.
But since then, they have changed their policy. They were no doubt disappointed by the decision of Her Majesty's Government, but, in a meeting with the Bahamas Prime Minister on 19th March they said that they, on behalf of the majority of the people of Abaco—remember, they had been advocating Crown status for Abaco—now wished to be actively associated with the changes which were about to take place in the Bahamas.
Even more recently, on 26th April, the Council issued a Press statement which said:
Having failed in this legitimate exploration of the possibility of separation, they are now persuaded that their duty is to work for the success of an independent and prosperous Bahamas.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to someone who had said that Abaco would never accept subordination. These were the words of Captain Leonard Thompson who, we now understand, has decided to work for the unity of the Bahamas and not for the secession of Abaco. Also, the Council has made it clear that it does not wish to be identified with the small number of Abaconians who are trying to keep the issue alive. They have specifically rejected the idea of recruiting mercenaries, and have given their view that the reported recruitment is by people who are not even Abaconians.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I have made it clear to my noble Friend that this account which he has been given is not true. My difficulty is—first, in an intervention and second on Second Reading—to go

into this at proper length, but I would summarise it—I will deal with it properly in Committee—by saying that this is all untrue. The "Greater Abaco Council" —a name which I coined myself to describe these individuals who came—has never met since December. As I told my noble Friend earlier today, of all these people for whom I appeared or acted, at most one has taken this line. If he has chosen to take over this rather good name which I was proud to think of and call himself the Greater Abaco Council, I shall not complain. There is no copyright in a name. But otherwise what my hon. Friend has said is so remote from the truth as to be quite absurd.

Lord Balniel: I adhere to what I said, and we can debate this in further detail in Committee.
In the 1972 election, more than one-third of the Abaco voters voted for the present governing party which specifically campaigned on the issue of early independence. In fact, 845 out of 2,286 votes were specifically cast for Mr. Pindling's party. As the hon. Member for Inverness said, we must keep a sense of proportion about this. The population of Abaco is only about 3 per cent. of the total population of the Bahamas, and the supporters of secession are clearly a substantially smaller figure than that.
The House will do no good service to the future of an independent Bahamas, nor to relations between an independent Bahamas and this country, if we elevate this into a major issue. Our desire is to have good relations with the elected Government in the Bahamas, and we believe that it is in the best interests of the people of all the islands of the Bahamas that they should work through their elected representatives. It is the desire of the United States, too, to have good relations with an independent Bahamas.
Finally, I propose to say something about the defence talks to which reference was made by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West. It was agreed at the independence conference held in December last that representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Bahamas would meet before


the date of independence to discuss defence matters. Exploratory talks on this subject, in which representatives of the United States Government participated, were held very recently in Nassau, and it is hoped that substantive discussions will take place on a tripartite basis very soon.
Apart from the natural concern aroused by the close proximity of the Bahamas to the east coast of America, the United States has a particular interest in the country because of the defence installations which are now covered by United Kingdom-United States of America bilateral agreements. Those talks have begun, they have begun well, and it is hoped soon to embark upon substantive talks.
I appreciate that I have not been able to answer all the questions that were asked during the debate but these can be followed up in Committee, and again I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — LAND COMPENSATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 2

INTERESTS QUALIFYING FOR COMPENSATION

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 37, leave out "and 11" and insert
,11 and (Tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967)".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking also the following Lords Amendments:
No. 4, in page 3, line 42, after "of" insert "(a)".
No. 5, in page 3, line 45, at end insert
and
(b) a crofter, a landholder, a statutory small tenant and a cottar in the land.
No. 6, in Clause 3, page 4, line 23, leave out "section 13" and insert
sections (Tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967) and 13".

Mr. Page: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, together with Lords Amendment No. 19, in page 13, line 31, at end, insert new Clause A:

TENANTS ENTITLED TO ENFRANCHISEMENT OR EXTENSION UNDER LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967

"A.—(1) This section has effect where a person is entitled under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of a house by virtue of any tenancy ("the qualifying tenancy") and—

(a) has on or before the relevant date given notice under that Act to the landlord of his desire to have the freehold or an extended lease; and
(b) has not acquired the freehold or an extended lease before that date.

(2) The qualifying tenancy shall be treated as an owner's interest as defined in section 2(4) above whether or not the unexpired term on the date of service of the notice of claim is of the length there specified.

(3) If no claim is made in respect of the qualifying tenancy before the claimant has ceased to be entitled to it by reason of his acquisition of the freehold or an extended lease he may make a claim in respect of the qualifying tenancy as if he were still entitled to it.

(4) No claim shall be made by virtue of subsection (3) above after the claimant has ceased to be entitled to the freehold or extended lease but such a claim may be made before the beginning of the claim period if it is made before the claimant has disposed of the freehold or extended lease and after he has made a contract for disposing of it.

(5) Compensation shall not be payable before the beginning of the claim period on any claim made by virtue of subsection (4) above.

(6) Any notice of a claim made by virtue of this section shall contain, in addition to the matters mentioned in section 3 above, a statement that it is made in respect of a qualifying tenancy as defined in this section and, if made by virtue of subsection (3) or (4) above, sufficient particulars to show that it falls within that subsection.

(7) In relation to a claim made by virtue of subsection (3) above section 4(3)(a) above shall have effect as if the reference to the date of service of notice of the claim were a reference to the relevant date."

The new clause is the main amendment in this group. It will enable a tenant


who qualifies for enfranchisement—that is, to buy the freehold or extend his lease —to be treated as an owner entitled to compensation for depreciation under Part I if his lease is less than three years or if he carries out enfranchisement in the process of claiming under Part I.

Set out in the clause are various permutations of the dates and notices, claims, start of use and enfranchisement. The object has been to obtain a fair and commonsense result in any set of circumstances. We are grateful to, I think it was, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), who raised this matter in Committee, and I am glad that we have been able to work it out, I hope, to his satisfaction.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Clause 6

REDUCTION OF COMPENSATION WHERE OTHER LAND IS BENEFITED

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 7, line 19, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 25 and insert
The compensation payable on a claim shall be reduced by an amount equal to any increase in the value of—

(a) the claimant's interest in the land in respect of which the claim is made; and
(b) any interest in other land contiguous or adjacent to the land mentioned in paragraph (a) above to which the claimant was entitled in the same capacity on the relevant date,
which is attributable to

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking also the following Lords Amendments:
No. 13, in page 7, line 27, at end insert:
( ) Sections 4 and 5 above shall not apply to the assessment, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, of the value of the interest mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.
No. 14, in page 7, line 38, after "acquisition" insert
, not being an acquisition of the land in respect of which the claim is made".

Mr. Page: The Bill as it left this House provided that where a claimant is entitled to an interest in land—if I may put it, land next door to the claim land—any increase in the value of that other interest which is attributable to the existence, use of or prospective use of the works, is set off against any compensation which is payable. This set-off for betterment provision did not, however, set off betterment to the land in respect of which the claim is made. The amendment does just that and, I think, puts right an anomaly.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 7

EXCLUSION OF MINIMAL COMPENSATION

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 8, line 24, leave out from "£50" to end of line 25.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a case in which, during Committee and other stages in this House, I resisted an amendment to remove the first £50 of any claim under Part I. Another place sought to restore that. I graciously bow out and eat my words on previous occasions and ask the House to agree with another place.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: We are extremely pleased that, although we did not succeed in our persuasion in this House, we perhaps paved the way for what I think is a sensible arrangement. I am advised by those who deal with these matters that to try to quantify some of the sums down to a precise £50 is extremely difficult. The removal of this barrier is likely to lead to a good deal of good will all round, and I am obliged to the Minister.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I do not want to destroy the unanimity but I must register at least a personal protest about this Lords Amendment. I understood the reason why the Government wanted to introduce the figure of £50. I always considered, and I said so in Committee, that if it was thought necessary to have a minimum figure for compensation, it would be


totally unfair, if one was not to exclude the first £50 of any claim higher than the £50, that if somebody had a compensation claim for £49 he would get nothing but that if he had a claim for £51 he would get the whole £51 if the amendment put forward from the other side of the House was carried. I have cited an extreme case, but it is one which was used by my right hon. Friend the Minister in Committee.
Whilst I could appreciate that it would be a good thing not to have any minimum limit at all, if one was going to have a minimum limit of £50 it seemed to me fair to have a qualifying phrase saying that any compensation of an amount over £50 should have the first £50 deducted. I must stand by that decision of the Committee on 12th December.
I put to my right hon. Friend therefore one or two issues which must flow from the amendment if we accept it. First, I do not accept that the reason for putting the £50 limit should be to dissuade a multiciplicity of small claims from being made, because the point I made earlier, which is still valid, is that there are just as likely to be as many cases with a minimum limit of £50. What is the procedure for dealing with these small claims? Will it be as part of or separate from the Lands Tribunal?
My right hon. Friend said that he would look into this and I think that the House is entitled to have the information if he is going to remove the deduction of £50 for any claim over £50 but still maintain the £50 as the minimum limit for compensation on. Surely we are entitled to, and perhaps to have written into the Bill, some procedure whereby, if any compensation claim is realised for less than £50, the person should have an automatic right to revaluation of his property. In other words, the rates he will have to pay should be automatically deducted by some suitable amount.
It seems grossly unfair to have this arbitrary figure of £50 without any thought being given to the deduction from rates on the property for any compensation lower than £50.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: Is it possible for my right hon.

Friend to tell me what will be the compensation of, say, a pensioner in my constituency who is in close proximity to a motorway? Pensioners are the least able to afford any expenses, even up to £50. How will they be considered if they are municipal tenants, for example, with a small claim such as may lie in the necessity of having a larger aerial installed in order to get better television reception? Will such expenses be entirely excluded? Will the Minister look at the amount in an arbitrary way rather than at the needs of individuals?

Mr. Graham Page: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) that there is no question of the Minister looking arbitrarily at these claims. If it is a claim to compensation under the Bill and it is disputed, it will go before the Lands Tribunal.
Any claimant who is advised that his claim does not exceed £50 will scarcely be likely to make the claim under the provisions of the Bill as it stands. It is reasonable to exclude claims of this small amount. It was decided that on balance there was perhaps after all more to be said for not obliging the claimant to bear the first £50 himself. First if the property owner feels that his property has suffered depreciation through injurious affection in this way, it is highly unlikely that one could sense the amount of depreciation to be worth a figure below £50. Secondly, it would be expecting too much of any valuer to be able to measure differences in values of such a small degree. If a person persists in bringing a claim which he believes to be over £50 and the final decision is that it is less than £50 I imagine that he will suffer the loss of costs from bringing the claim.
Claims of this sort in Part I are intended to be for substantial injurious affection to property. We must exclude the small claims, but there is no reason why, if a substantial claim is proved, one should deduct the first £50.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Mulley: Is it not important to bring out, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the fact that this provision applies only to claims by property owners, and that the £50 minimum does not apply to home loss, and such benefits that municipal tenants can


obtain. It applies only to the actual owners of property.

Mr. Page: We are dealing here only with claims for injurious affection, in respect of property, by the use of public works. There is no question of home loss payment, or payment for the acquisition of land. This is compensation for depreciation.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON COMPENSATION

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 38, leave out from "compulsorily" to end of line 3 on page 10 and insert:
acquired, then, if—

(a) the value of that land has been dimin-nished by the public works to which the claim relates; but
(b) the compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition falls to be assessed without regard to the diminution,
the compensation in respect of the acquisition shall be reduced by an amount equal to the compensation paid or payable on the claim or, if the acquisition extends only to part of the land, to so much of the last-mentioned compensation as is attributable to that part."

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment ensures that when part of the claimant's land is acquired and he also has a Part I claim in respect of the rest of his amount of apportionment, compensation is not calculated on a proportional basis directly related to the area of the part taken in the area of the whole but on a value basis, that is, according to the real depreciation affecting the different parts of the land.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9

ALTERATIONS TO PUBLIC WORKS AND CHANGES OF USE

Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 11, line 25, leave out from second "if" to end of line 28 and insert:

"(a) the location, width or level of the carriageway is altered (otherwise than by re-surfacing); or

(b) an additional carriageway is provided for the highway beside, above or below an existing one;
and the reference in subsection (2) above to depreciation that would not have been caused but for alterations to the carriageway of a highway is a reference to such depreciation by physical factors which are caused by the use of, and the source of which is situated on, the length of carriageway which has been altered as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, the additional carriageway and the corresponding length of the existing one mentioned in paragraph (6) above."

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is intended that depreciation caused by the noise of traffic on the whole width of a widened length of carriageway should qualify for compensation. The amendment ensures, first, that the claim is only in respect of noise coming from the widened road and not from traffic noise generated by the widened part of a road somewhere far off, the traffic later passing the claimant's property, and, secondly, that the claim can relate to all the traffic on the widened road, even if part of it was there before—that is to say, if a two-lane road is extended onto a three-lane road. One is dealing with the noise from the whole of the traffic.
This seems a common sense way of dealing with the situation. It is a matter which gave us considerable discussion in Committee, but I hope that we have now solved it to hon. Members' satisfaction.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Mr. Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A great number of these amendments are wholly drafting. It might be convenient and save your time if they were grouped in one Question. Very often they repeat themselves. Perhaps we might proceed until a Minister or and hon. Member wishes to make an observation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall try to group them as much as I can.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18

INTERPRETATION OF PART 1

Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 16, line 26, at end insert:


"and no claim shall be made it the highway does not become a highway so maintainable within three years of the relevant date as determined in accordance with paragraph (a) above but, if it does, the claim period shall be treated as continuing until the end of one year from the date on which it becomes a highway so maintainable if, apart from this provision, that period would end earlier.


(4) In the application of subsection (3) above to Scotland—


(a) for the words from "highway which "to" defined above" and for the words "highway does" there shall be substituted respectively the words "road which has not always been a highway" and "road does";


b) the words "so maintainable" wherever they occur shall be omitted."

Read a Second time.

Amendments made, as amendments to Lords Amendment No. 25, in line 2, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 4 and insert:
'the relevant date falls at a time when the highway was not so maintainable and the highway does not become so maintainable within three years of that date'.

In line 6, leave out 'a highway'.

In line 9, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
'(a) for the words from "highway which" to "defined above" and "highway so maintainable" there shall be substituted respectively the words "road which has not always since 17th October 1969 been a highway" and "highway";
(b) for the words "the highway was not maintainable and the highway does not become so maintainable" there shall be substituted the words "the road was not a highway and the road does not become a highway";
(c) for the words "it becomes so maintainable" there shall be substituted the words "it becomes a highway".'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19

SOUNDPROOFING OF BUILDINGS AFFECTED BY PUBLIC WORKS

Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 16, line 37, at end insert:
and the area in which a building must be situated if a duty or power is to arise in respect of it

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The central point is that there will need to be power for the responsible authorities to publish a map. The Bill originally did not do this, and these technical amendments make it possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 28, in page 17, line 29, at end insert:
(5A) Regulations under this section may authorise the council of a London borough to contribute towards expenses incurred under the regulations by a responsible authority in respect of the insulation of buildings against noise caused or expected to be caused by the use of any highway in that borough in relation to which an order has been made under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (traffic regulation orders in Greater London).

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It was inspired by the Greater London Council following consultation with the London boroughs. It enables the boroughs to make contributions towards the payment of grants and towards the cost of insulating buildings. They would like to do this, and I am sure that this House would not wish to stand in their way.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause B

POWER TO PAY EXPENSES OF PERSONS MOVING TEMPORARILY DURING CONSTRUCTION WORKS ETC.

Lords A mendment: No. 34, in page 24, line 30, at end insert new Clause B—

" B.—(1) This section has effect where works are carried out—

(a) by a highway authority for the construction or improvement of a highway; or
(b) by a responsible authority for the construction or alteration of any public works other than a highway,
and the carrying out of those works affects the enjoyment of a dwelling adjacent to the site on which they are being carried out to such an extent that continued occupation of the dwelling is not reasonably practicable.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, the highway authority or responsible authority, as the case may be, may pay any reasonable expenses incurred by the occupier of the dwelling in providing suitable alternative residential accommodation for himself and members of his household for the whole or any part of the period during which the works are being carried out.

(3) No payment shall be made to any person under this section in respect of any expenses except in pursuance of an agreement made between that person and the authority concerned before the expenses are incurred; and no payment shall be so made except in respect of the amount by which the expenses exceed those which that person would have incurred if the dwelling had continued to be occupied.

(4) In this section 'public works' and 'responsible authority' have the same meaning as in section 1 above.

(5) In the application of this section to Scotland 'highway authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970, and in subsection (1) for any reference to a highway there shall be substituted a reference to a road."

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The clause provides a discretionary power for local authorities and other responsible authorities to pay to the occupants of dwellings, which temporarily are seriously affected by the carrying out of highway and other public works, reasonable expenses incurred in providing themselves with temporary alternative accommodation. In Committee, we were concerned whether authorities could put up people in

lodgings or hotels during a period of physical hardship—dust, dirt and noise— caused by construction. The clause fulfils the undertaking which I gave.

Mr. Mulley: This is a further improvement to the Bill. If we seem to rush through these amendments, that does not take away the gratitude that we have for the very reasonable and sympathetic way in which many proposals made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been studied and incorporated into amendments in another place.
It is regrettable—and I do not accuse either Minister of discourtesy in this respect—that the business managers of the House have seen fit to put these very important amendments on at this late hour, especially when the Report stage had to be taken between the hours of 9.40 p.m. and 4 o'clock on the morning. This is a very important Bill. I think that it could have been treated better. However, I do not want to hold it up because many people will benefit. We should get on. I do not want to keep getting up and saying "Thank you" to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will accept this omnibus vote of thanks, except for such points as we wish to raise.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 27

RIGHT TO HOME LOSS PAYMENT WHERE PERSON DISPLACED FROM DWELLING

Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 25, line 21, leave out
coming into operation of the compulsory purchase order

and insert:
date on which the acquiring authority were authorised to acquire that interest".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will take the Lords Amendments Nos. 36 and 48.

Mr. Page: It is not evident on the face of the amendments what they are about. The amendments are necessary to include within the scope of the clause


persons displaced by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers by virtue of a private Act which does not involve the making of a specific compulsory purchase order.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments made

Lords Amendment: No. 37, in page 26, line 20, at end insert "and 'redevelopment' includes a change of use".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will take Lords Amendments Nos. 58, 60, 63 and 72.

Mr. Page: This amendment and the others in this group provide that where a person is displaced from his home in consequence of the change of use of a building after it has been acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, he has the same entitlement to a home loss payment as a person displaced in consequence of redevelopment—for example, when an authority acquires a dwelling and changes its use to, say, an office, thereby displacing its occupier.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for drawing attention to this matter in the earlier stages of the Bill. I am glad that we have been able to make provision for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 26, line 20, at end insert:
( ) Where an interest in a dwelling is vested in trustees (other than a sole tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act 1925) and a person beneficially entitled (whether directly or derivatively) under the trusts is entitled or permitted by reason of his interest to occupy the dwelling, he shall be treated for the purposes of this section as occupying it by virtue of an interest in the dwelling.
In the application of this subsection to Scotland the words "(other than a sole tenant for life within the meaning of the Settled Land Act 1925") shall be omitted.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will take the following Lords Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, and 45.

Mr. Page: Clause 27(4)(a) applies the right, subject to certain qualifying conditions, to a home loss payment on a person having "any interest in the dwelling" from which he is displaced. It is not uncommon for a residential property to be held subject to a trust for sale and a person beneficially entitled under the trust to be entitled or permitted to occupy the dwelling. For the avoidance of doubt whether such a person is entitled to a home loss payment, the amendment provides that "interest in the dwelling" includes interest in a dwelling subject to a trust for sale.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT HOME LOSS PAYMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 28, line 23, leave out from "period" to "the" in line 25.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We found that there was no justification for including the limitation in Clause 30(3) that, where a successor is claiming the occupation of the previous occupier should have terminated with his death. The amendment abolishes that limitation. The right could have ceased in any other way.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 44, in page 28, line 27, at end insert:
(3A) Where a person ("the deceased") dies before the expiration of the period for making a claim to a home loss payment and would have been entitled to such a payment if he had made a claim within that period, a claim to that payment may be made, before the expiration of that period, by any person, not being a minor, who—

(a) throughout a period of not less than five years ending with the date of displacement of the deceased, has resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it, as his only or main residence; and
(b) is entitled to benefit by virtue of testamentary dispositions taking effect on, or the law of intestate succession or the right of survivorship between joint tenants as applied to, the death of the deceased."

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will take Lords Amendments Nos. 46 and 49.
There is a question of privilege involved on Lords Amendment No. 46. On Lords Amendment No. 49 the right hon. Member will no doubt want to speak to his Amendments.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Page: Lords Amendments No. 44, 46 and 49 go together. The new subsection (3A) provides for the case of a claimant who is entitled to a home loss payment but who dies before the expiration of the six months' claim period after displacement and without making a claim. In these circumstances, a claim may be made before the end of the claim period by any person, other than a minor, who resided in the dwelling as his only or main residence for not less than five years, ending with the date of displacement of the deceased, and who is beneficially entitled to share in the estate of the deceased, whether by virtue of testamentary dispositions, or the law of intestate succession or the right of survivorship between joint tenants.
Lords Amendment No. 46 is consequential. Lords Amendment No. 49 applies the same provision to Scotland.
When we come to Lords Amendment No. 49, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek your ruling on moving the amendments thereto.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Lords Amendment: No. 49, in page 28, line 45, at end insert:
( ) In the application of subsection (3A) above to Scotland—

(a) for the word 'minor' there shall be substituted the words "person under the age of eighteen";
(b) in paragraph (b), for the words from 'testamentary' to 'tenants' there shall be substituted the words

'(i) a testamentary disposition or any other deed with testamentary effect taking effect on, or the law of intestate succession" and at the end there shall be added the following words' or

(ii) a right to jus relicti, jus relictae or legitim out of the deceased's estate'.

Read a Second time.

Amendments to the Lords Amendment made: after second '(b)', insert '(i); leave out '(i)'.

Lords Amendment No. 49, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause C

HOME LOSS PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN CARAVAN DWELLERS

Lords Amendment: No. 50, in page 28, line 45, at end insert new Clause C:

"C.—(1) Sections 27 to 30 above shall, so far as applicable, have effect in relation to a person residing in a caravan on a caravan site who is displaced from that site as they have effect in relation to a person displaced from a dwelling on any land but shall so have effect subject to the following modifications.

(2) No home loss payment shall be made to any person by virtue of this section except where no suitable alternative site for stationing a caravan is available to him on reasonable terms.

(3) Subsection (1) of section 27 above shall have effect as if for the words preceding paragraph (a) there were substituted the words "Where a person residing in a caravan on a caravan site is displaced from that site in consequence of" and subsection (2) of that section shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—
'(a) he has been in occupation of the caravan site by using a caravan stationed on it as his only or main residence; and
(b) he has been in occupation of the site as aforesaid by virtue of an interest or right to which this section applies.

(4) Sections 28(3) and 29(3) above shall have effect as if—

(a) paragraph (b) were omitted; and
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (c) for the word 'dwelling' there were substituted the words 'caravan site together with a caravan'.

(5) Section 30 above shall have effect—

(a) as if in subsection (3) for the words 'in occupation of a dwelling or a substantial part of it', 'resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it' and 'in occupation thereof' there were substituted respectively the words 'in occupation of a caravan site', 'resided in a caravan on that site' and 'in occupation of that site ';
(b) as if in subsection (3A) for the words 'resided in the dwelling, or a substantial part of it' there were substituted the words 'resided in a caravan on the caravan site'; and


(c) as if for subsection (4) there were substituted—
'(4) Where any land comprises two or more caravan sites and the claimant has successively been in occupation of or resided in a caravan on different caravan sites on that land, section 27(2) above and subsections (3) and (3A) above shall have effect as if those sites were the same site.'

(6) Sections 27 to 30 above shall have effect as if in any provision not modified as aforesaid for any reference to a dwelling or land there were substituted a reference to a caravan site.

(7) In this section 'caravan site' means land on which a caravan is stationed for the purpose of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed."

Mr. Graham Page: I (beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking Lords Amendment No. 73.

Mr. Page: This amendment is a new clause, the purpose of which is to deal with home loss payments for caravan dwellers. The purpose of the home loss payments scheme is to provide a financial solatium to occupiers of dwellings in which they have a specified interest or right when they are forcibly displaced, provided they have occupied the dwelling for a period of five years or more. To the occupier, a caravan is as much his home, as is a traditionally-built dwelling to any other occupier, and the personal upset he suffers when his caravan site is acquired and he is forced to dispose of his caravan may be just as acute. The main difference between a caravanner whose site is acquired and, say, the tenant of a house is that if an alternative site is available the caravanner can take his home with him on displacement, like a snail. He does not, therefore, lose his home as such, and for this reason the new clause specifically excludes him from an entitlement to a home loss payment if a suitable alternative site is available to him on reasonable terms.
The rest of the clause, generally, adapts the dwelling provisions to the caravan site but imports the five years' occupation qualifying condition. It substitutes an interest or right in the site on which the caravan stands for the occupation of a dwelling and an interest or right in that

dwelling. The subsections make those adjustments throughout.
New Clause E—Amendment No. 73— on the Order Paper, provides for the rehousing provisions to apply to certain caravan dwellers. That is not only the home loss payment but rehousing under certain circumstances. The new clause requires local housing authorities to ensure that suitable residential accommodation is provided for a displaced caravan dweller if neither such accommodation nor a suitable alternative site for a caravan is otherwise available. The subsections of the new clause merely adjusts the rehousing provisions which apply to the normal dwellinghouse so that they apply to the caravan and particularly the caravan site.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It would be churlish of me if I did not say at this stage some words of thanks to the Government for the efforts which they have made to meet some of the Opposition's point. Like the mills of God the Government machine grinds slow but long. My hon. Friends and I will not reiterate our thanks to the Government for the efforts they have made. I thank them in advance for matters which are still to come.

Mr. James Allason: I welcome this new concession for caravan dwellers. In my constituency a new road of motorway standard is being driven past some caravan dwellings. I am not certain whether they will be displaced. I understand that there will not be compensation for noise and nuisance. Supposing those caravan dwellings are just the wrong side of the boundary and are not displaced? If that were the situation they would be rattled to pieces by the noise. In those circumstances, the situation appears to be rather illogical. It is rather too late to put that right if I am correct in my assumption. I hope that when the matter is dealt with in a practical way it will be possible to draw a line so as to make sure that such caravan dwellers shall be displaced rather than allowed to be rattled to pieces by the noise of a motorway.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is


referring to caravans which park on the roadside—

Mr. Allason: No.

Mr. Page: I should make it clear, even if my hon. Friend is not referring to such caravans, that they would not get the benefit of new housing compensation or double glazing. They are there as trespassers. If a caravan dweller is on land or a caravan site lawfully he will be entitled to home loss payment. He will be so entitled unless sites are available elsewhere. He will be entitled to be rehoused within a dwellinghouse or to be provided with a site to which he can take his caravan. I hope that I have covered the point which my hon. Friend had in mind.

Mr. Allason: My point was based on the supposition that the line, which has not yet been drawn, is drawn just outside the land taken for the road. If that were the position, caravan dwellers on the edge of the motorway would be rattled to bits.

Mr. Page: We are talking here not of Part 1 claims for injurious affection but the claims in the remainder of the Bill. The caravan dweller on a caravan site near a road that is being built and who is suffering within the noise range would, I believe, be just as entitled as any other owner of a dwelling near the highway to compensation for the noise. I do not say that the regulations which are to be published by the Secretary of State will go as far as double glazing for caravans. Double glazing, insulation, and so on, will be covered by the regulations, but I do not think we would be prepared to take things as far as that.

Mr. Mulley: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that ownership of a caravan is an interest in land, even though it may be resting on rented land? That opens up a whole avenue of new problems.

Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman has me on the run at this time of night. I had better say that I shall write to him about this, without trying to give a decision off the cuff. When we have corresponded I may invite him to table a Question so that we can get this clearly on the record.

Mr. Buchan: Perhaps this can be dealt with in the regulations if we adopt the same ingenious attitude that has been adopted in respect of earlier matters.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I do not wish to sound churlish. I agree with Lords Amendment No. 50 and appreciate what my right hon. Friend has tried to do. As I understand it, he said that if a caravan owner suffers and an alternative site is not found, compensation is payable. But there are many different types of caravan. Some are so large that they cannot easily be wheeled to another site. For these, considerable expense would be involved.

Mr. Page: I think my hon. Friend is referring to mobile homes, which are not really caravans. Such homes can be just as permanent as bricks and mortar homes. We have to judge this on the individual case rather than try to lay down regulations at this time of night. A caravan is a caravan. I cannot go further than that.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

After Clause 30

Lords Amendment: No. 51, in page 30, line 3, after "1971" insert "or".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Lords Amendment No. 52.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Griffiths: The first of these amendments is consequential on the second, which is the substantive amendment. Its purpose is to remove the bar at present secured by subsection (6) to an entitlement to a farm loss payment in circumstances where only part of an owner-occupied farm is being compulsorily acquired. It does not seem fair to deprive an owner of the exercise of his right under Clause 47 to a farm loss payment when through the action of the acquiring authority he has no other course but to give up the whole farm.
It may be convenient if on the first of these amendments dealing with agricultural matters I were to try to sum up


the impact of the Lords Amendments on all of the various agricultural points within the Bill. These points are covered in Clauses 31 to 33 dealing with farm loss payments. There are also Lords Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 55, 56 and 57.
In Clause 43 which deals with security of tenure we have Lords Amendments No. 90, page 44, line 17, leave out from "landlord" to "and" in line 22 and insert:
 which would not be or would not have been effective if—

(i) in section 24(2)(b) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (land required for non-agricultural use for which planning permission has been granted etc.) the reference to the land being required did not include a reference to its being required by an acquiring authority; and
(ii) in section 25(1)(e) of that Act (proposed termination of tenancy for purpose of land's being used for non-agricultural use not falling within section 24(2)(b) the reference to the land's being used did not include a reference to its being used by an acquiring authority;"


and No. 91, in page 44, line 32, leave out from "landlord" to end of line 35 and insert:
which would not be or would not have been effective if the said section 24(2)(b) and 25(1)(e) were construed in accordance with subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) above.
In Clauses 47, 48, 49 and 50, covering severance of agricultural land, we have Lords Amendments:
No. 96, in page 50, leave out line 31 and insert:
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, "other relevant land" in subsection (1) above means—
No. 97, in line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) Where an acquiring authority have served a notice to treat in respect of any of the other agricultural land mentioned in subsection (1) above or in respect of other relevant land as defined in subsection (3) above, then, unless and until that notice to treat is withdrawn, this section and section 48 below shall have effect as if that land did not form part of that other agricultural land or did not constitute other relevant land, as the case may be.
No. 98, in page 52, Sine 13, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert:
(a) the authority shall offer to surrender the lease to the lessor on such terms as the authority consider reasonable;
(b) the question of what terms are reasonable may be referred to the Lands Tribunal by

the authority or the lessor and, if at the expiration of three months after the date of the offer mentioned in paragraph (a) above, the authority and the lessor have not agreed on that question and that question has not been referred to the Tribunal by the lessor, it shall be so referred by the authority;
(c) if that question is referred to the Tribunal the lessor shall be deemed to have accepted the surrender of the lease at the expiration of one month after the date of the determination of the Tribunal or on such other date as the Tribunal may direct and to have agreed with the authority on the terms of surrender which the Tribunal has held to be reasonable.
No. 99, in line 28, at end insert:
(6A) Where the lessor refuses to accept any sum payable to him by virtue of subsection (6) above, or refuses or fails to make out his title to the satisfaction of the acquiring authority, they may pay into court any sum payable to the lessor by virtue of that subsection; and subsections (2) and (5) of section 9 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (deposit of compensation in cases of refusal to convey etc.) shall apply to that sum with the necessary modifications.
No. 100, in line 44, leave out from "and" to end of line 4 on page 53 and insert:
in paragraph (c) for the word "surrender" there shall be substituted the word "renunciation"".
No. 101, in page 53, line 4, at end insert:
(d) in subsection (7), for the word "court" and for the words from "subsections (2)" to the end there shall be substituted respectively the words "the Bank within the meaning of section 3 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845" and the words "the following provisions of the said Act of 1845 shall apply to that sum with the necessary modifications—

(i) section 75 so far as it relates to the opening of an account,
(ii) section 76 so far as it relates to the giving of a receipt,
(iii) section 77,
(iv) section 79.""


No. 102, leave out line 25 and insert:
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, "other relevant land" in subsection (1) above means—
No. 103, in line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) Where an acquiring authority have served a notice to treat in respect of land in the agricultural holding other than that to which the notice of entry relates or in respect of other relevant land as defined in subsection (3) above, then, unless and until that notice to treat is withdrawn, this section and section 50 below shall have effect as if that


land did not form part of the holding or did not constitute other relevant land, as the case may be.
No. 104, in page 54, line 22, leave cut "acquired" and insert "been authorised to acquire".
No. 105, in line 24, leave out "acquired" and insert "subject to compulsory purchase".
No. 106, in line 27, leave out "acquired" and insert "subject to compulsory purchase".
No. 107, in line 30, leave out "acquired" and insert "subject to compulsory purchase".
No. 108, in line 41, leave out "accrue on" and insert "arise on or out of".
No. 109, in page 55, line 3, leave out "acquired" and insert "subject to compulsory purchase".
No. 110, in line 7, at end insert:
(3A) Where a tenancy is terminated by virtue of subsection (3)(c) above, section 58 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (landlord's right to compensation for deterioration of holding) shall have effect as if the proviso required the landlord's notice of intention to claim compensation to be served on the acquiring authority and to be so served within three months after the termination of the tenancy.
and No. 111, in line 12, leave out from "(3)" to end of line 16 and insert:
(d) for the words from "contract" to "1948" there shall be substituted the words "lease, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, the "Crofters (Scotland) Acts 1955 and 1961, the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931";
(c) in subsection (3A), for the reference to section 58 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 there shall be substituted a reference to section 59(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 and for the word "proviso" there shall be substituted the words "said section 59(1)".
In Clause 53, which refers to notices to farmers to quit, we have Amendments
No. 117, in page 57, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert:
 . being an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, have agreed to acquire his interest in the holding; and
No. 118, in line 30, leave out
in pursuance of section 24(2)(a) of that Act ".
No. 119, in page 58, line 26, at end insert:
and the termination of the tenancy
No. 120, in line 27, at end insert:

(6) A person served with a notice to quit part of an agricultural holding shall not be entitled, in relation to that notice, both to make an election under this section and to give a counter-notice under section 32 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (tenant's right to cause notice to quit part of holding to operate as notice to quit entire holding)
and No. 121, in line 27, at end insert:
(7) the reference in subsection (l)(a) above to a notice to treat served by an acquiring authority includes a reference to a notice to treat deemed to have been so served under any of the provisions mentioned in section 47(5) above.
In Clause 54, which concerns the right to serve a counter-notice I am covering Lords Amendment No. 124, in page 58, line 32, leave out from "notice" to end of line 42 and insert:
or, if later, the decision of the Agricultural Land Tribunal, he may also within that period serve a notice on the acquiring authority claiming that the remainder of the holding is not reasonably capable of being farmed, either by itself or in conjunction with other relevant land, as a separate agricultural unit.
(2) If the acquiring authority do not within the period of two months beginning with the date of service of a notice under subsection (1) above agree in writing to accept the notice as valid, the claimant or the authority may, within two months after the end of that period, refer it to the Lands Tribunal, and on any such reference the Tribunal shall determine whether the claim in the notice is justified and declare the notice valid or invalid in accordance with its determination of that question.
(3) Where a notice under subsection (1) above is accepted as, or declared to be, valid under subsection (2) above then, if before the end of twelve months after it has been so accepted or declared the claimant has given up to the acquiring authority possession of the part of the holding to which the notice relates, section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 shall have effect as if the acquiring authority had taken possession of that part in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the said Act of 1965 on the day before the expiration of the year of the tenancy which is current when the notice is so accepted or declared.
(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 49 and subsection (3) of section 50 above shall apply in relation to subsections (1) to (3) above and to a notice under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to those sections and a counter-notice under subsection (1) of section 49, and shall so apply with the necessary modifications and as if any reference to the notice of entry were a reference to the notice to quit.")
and 126, in page 59, line 2, at end insert:
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) in subsection (1) for the reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal there shall


be substituted a reference to the Scottish Land Court;
(b) in subsection (2) for any reference to the Lands Tribunal there shall be substituted a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland;
(c) in subsection (3) for the references to sections 11(1) and 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 there shall be substituted respectively references to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 and section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845."


It would be convenient for the House I think, if I summarised the effects of the practical situation for the farmer. If hon. Gentlemen then wish to raise points, as we come to them throughout the Bill, I shall attempt to answer, but the House may agree to my moving them formally if I now explain them.
Before the Bill the owner-occupier farmer got the market price for the land taken with vacant possession and disturbance compensation covering his out-of-pocket expenses.
Under the Bill, as amended by this House, he gets, in addition, a home loss payment for his farm house and a farm loss payment to cover temporary loss of yield, and can make the authority which wants only part of the land take the whole of it if taking only part would leave him with an unviable holding.
He can widen a blight notice in the same way and also get 90 per cent. of his compensation in advance of settlement on the day he leaves his farm.
If he stays and no land is taken he can get compensation for depreciation caused by nuisance from new roads and in any case he gets sound insulation for his farmhouse against excessive traffic noise from new roads.
The Lords have put in a number of further improvements. The owner-occupier farmer can get a farm loss payment if he has made an authority take all his farm, even if it wanted only part. Further, if he stays on after selling the farm, he can choose the three most profitable consecutive years for calculating his farm loss payments, which can make a deal of difference.
If he dies after qualifying but before making a claim his family can claim for the farm loss in his place.
We welcome these amendments made in the Lords, and I commend them to the House.
In the case of the landlord, before the Bill he could get market price for land taken and if he could not get a tenant out as a result of the authority's proposals, he could get vacant possession value.
Under the Bill as amended in this House, he still gets market price, but if he got the tenant out as a result of development proposals he would not get vacant possession value. In addition, he can make an authority take the whole of the farm if only taking part would leave an unviable holding. If his tenant has made the authority take all his holding the landlord can get it back on reasonable terms.
In the Bill as amended in the Lords, there is a minor improvement. If the landlord could have got rid of his tenant without the acquiring authority's scheme, then he will get vacant possession value. If his tenant has made the authority take all his holding, the landlord gets the land back from the acquiring authority on improved terms.
I hope that my attempt to explain in practical language the effect of the Lords Amendments is acceptable to the House. I commend the Lords Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We now come to Lords Amendment No. 53, with which it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 54. Privilege is involved.

Lords Amendment No. 53: In page 30, line 9, leave out "or".

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The House will want to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 54, in page 30, line 10, leave out from second "lease" to end of line 12, and insert:
with an unexpired period or continuing on tacit relocation, or of a crofter".
and also the motion standing in my name, to move the following amendment to the Bill, in lieu of Lords Amendments Nos.


53 and 54, in clause 31, page 30, line 12, at end insert
'or the interest of a crofter or a landholder'
While we do not feel able to accept these amendments as inserted in the Bill in another place, we are proposing an alternative amendment to the same subsection which will to some extent meet the intentions of the original amendment and indeed go further in conveying benefit on a class of tenant not covered by the amendment as it stands.
These amendments deal with the classes of persons who are entitled to farm loss payments under the Bill. As hon. Members will remember from our earlier discussions, these payments are to be made when a farmer who is displaced from his farm takes up farming elsewhere within a period of three years. It consists of a payment of one year's loss of profits. The Bill as it stood before it was amended by the Lords, provided for the making of farm loss payments to owner-occupiers and to tenants on a lease with not less than three years to run.
I understand that the intention of the Lords amendments is to extend the entitlement to year to year tenants in Scotland and also to crofters. Let me first deal with year to year tenants. The Lords amendments refer to these classes —they are the tenants holding on a lease on tacit relocation—but in fact the clause as amended by these amendments would not give farm loss payments to year to year tenants. This is because subsection (5) provides that farm loss payments shall not be paid to anyone entitled to payments under Section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. These are additional payments made to a dispossessed tenant for the reorganisation of his affairs.
Any year to year tenant dispossessed by an acquiring authority would be entitled to this payment under Section 12 of the 1968 Act, so that the inclusion in the amendment of the reference to tenants on tacit relocation has no effect. This would not give these tenants farm loss payments. It is therefore necessary to make a technical amendment to delete this provision.
We have, however, looked again at the other class of tenant referred to in the amendment—the crofters. These are, of

course, a special class of tenant, peculiar to Scotland with a very high security of tenure who have also normally provided the buildings and equipment on their holdings; and we have already agreed that they should be specially provided for in Clause 2. The provisions in Section 12 of the 1968 Act do not apply to them, so that they would not be precluded by the provisions of subsection (5) from getting a farm loss payment; and we have concluded that it would be fair to allow this part of the Lords amendments to remain. We propose, however, to expand this to include landholders who hold on a similar tenure in those parts of Scotland outside the crofting counties.

Mr. Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not speak on the substance of the amendment because I hesitate to speak about Scots law, in which I am guided by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). It is unusual that an amendment of this sort should appear on the Order Paper only at today's sitting. The House has not been given much time to consider it.
It is obviously in order to disagree with the Lords Amendment, but is it in order to move another amendment in its place? If so, there is no limit to the possibility of new amendments being put down. It is not an amendment of the Lords Amendment but a proposed amendment to the Bill. Although I have nothing against the amendment in principle, this is surely a novel and irregular proceeding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Luckily, it has nothing to do with me. Mr. Speaker selects the amendments and decides whether starred amendments should be allowed on the day.

Mr. Mulley: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not questioning the starred amendment; I am merely drawing attention to the inconvenience that this practice of Government Departments causes to hon. Members. I am raising the wider and more significant point whether anyone—a Minister or not—can at this stage propose a new amendment to the Bill as distinct from agreeing or disagreeing with, or amending, a Lords Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I refer the House to Erskine May, page 538, sub-paragraph (4):
While disagreeing to the amendment, they may make an amendment to the bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment to which they have disagreed; or, where the Lords Amendment proposes to leave out words or to leave out words and insert other words, an amendment may be made to the words so restored to the bill. In both these cases consequential amendments may also be made to the bill.
I think the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will agree that we are in order.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to that point of order. On the question of notice, I wish to apologise to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the fact that the amendment was tabled fairly recently. I know that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) will agree that this is a highly complicated matter, and it is not long since the Lords considered it. It was introduced at a fairly late stage in our proceedings. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my apology for what has happened.

Mr. Buchan: The House of Lords last discussed this matter about a week ago. The amendments which have come forward are quite simple, and I am grateful that the point has been taken about the landholders with a similar tenure to the crofters elsewhere.
There are two points which arise. I believe that it is not for us to deal with starred amendments in this way, especially as this runs counter to a substantial expert view in the House of Lords. I refer to Lord Balerno, who is a notable agricultural specialist, who was among those who strongly argued that this amendment should be carried. I might add that sons tend to be radical and progressive compared to their fathers. I am not saying that that is true of the present situation, but Lord Balerno is a notable agricultural expert. Therefore, it is surprising that the amendment has been rejected. Apparently it has taken the Government a week to decide not to bring in the new words, and to go against expert opinion in the House of Lords. This perhaps suggests that they regard this as a fairly marginal point.
In view of these matters which I have raised, and especially because of the in-

convenience, awkwardness and casual procedural method which has been adopted, I believe that it should be incumbent on the Government now to withdraw these amendments. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell the House that this is his intention, for it would undoubtedly be helpful for Parliament and for the substance of the case.
On the substance of the case, we welcome the extension to crofters and the extension from there to the landholder. But the kernel of the discussion in the other place related to the tenant farmer. I shall not go into a lengthy discussion of tenant farmers, but this relates to the change of succession and the landholding structure in Scotland so that security of tenure would prevail. It is true that security of tenure in Scotland gives a substantial holding to the tenant. Viscount Massereene and Ferrard in another place regarded it as expropriation that they have been given that right. If he wants to call it expropriation, that is up to him, but it is a substantial step forward and I accept that it would be without compensation. It means that he accepts special rights analogous to the rights of ownership to this section of tenants.
1.30 a.m.
Many people in England and Wales believe that the same principle should apply in their parts of the country and would like to see a change taking place. However, there was no suggestion in the Lords amendments that this change should take place. I believe that we should adhere to the amendments. They consist of a list of wide-ranging improvements in compensation terms for owner-occupiers and for landlords and equity demands that the same principle be applied to the tenant farmer.
I end where I began in saying that these powerful arguments must be considered in the light of the curious fact that the dog has failed to bark for a week—it has taken a week for these matters to reach us and therefore the decision must have been marginal. We have been full of cross-the-table congratulations tonight and perhaps the way to finish the discussion on the agricultural sections on a harmonious note is for the Under-Secretary to give his backing and blessing to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) must appreciate that the clause, as amended by the Lords amendments, would not give farm loss payments to year-to-year tenants and to that extent the amendments are deficient. Whatever else happened we could not have left the Bill as it would have been amended.
The second point concerned what was said in another place. I am glad that the hon. Member paid a tribute to the experts in another place and I shall pass on his tributes to those who considered the question of the relative security of tenure on the other side of the border. Leasehold tenants in Scotland have the same security as tenants in England and Wales except in relation to the important matter of succession. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act a successor to a leasehold tenancy in Scotland may have the right to succeed to a tenancy provided that he or she is a near relative. However, such a successor may be dispensed with if the farm is not large enough to employ two people and if there are plans for amalgamation. There is no similar provision for this in England and Wales.
The marginally greater interest of the Scottish leasehold tenant will of course be taken into account in assessing the expectation of security under Clause 43. Therefore taking this extra point into account there is no justification for making these grounds for giving farm loss payments in addition and that must be borne in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Mr. Bachanan-Smith: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords amendments last disagreed to, in clause 31, page 30, line 12, at end insert:
' or the interest of a crofter or a landholder'.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order. We have had a long analysis of a number of amendments together, for which we are grateful. Would it be possible for the Minister to move the complete list of Amendments which he subsumed in his

explanation in what we in Scotland call a "one-er"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If no hon. Member wishes to speak on any amendment, I could put together all those amendments which do not involve a matter of privilege. I would then put those that involved privilege.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that it would be satisfactory, with respect, to put them in that way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of the amendments are not self-evident. My hon. Friend mentioned a number which could be grouped together. But we could make rapid progress by merely saying a word or two on the others.

Mr. Buchan: In that case, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could adopt the same procedure as his colleague and pick out only a few salient points on each Amendment. I know this is difficult when Ministers have long briefs but it might help to make better progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister would name the next amendment on which he would like to address the House, I will put all those in between.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I suggest we take Nos. 55, 56 and 57, which are all on agricultural points, and perhaps take other agricultural groupings formally later.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Clause 34

DISTURBANCE PAYMENTS FOR PERSONS WITHOUT COMPENSATABLE INTERESTS

Lords Amendment: No. 62 in page 34, line 41, leave out "subsections (4) and (5) above" and insert:
section (Amount of disturbance payment) (1) to (3) below.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that we discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 64, 87 and 88.

Mr. Griffiths: No. 62 is purely a drafting amendment. No. 64 contains a number of matters which were discussed in


some detail. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was concerned about the position of the disabled. A disabled person in lawful possession of a dwelling who is not otherwise entitled to a disturbance payment will be entitled, like anyone else, to disturbance payment under Clause 34. We had long discussions about the extent to which modifications should be made for the disabled. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that we have gone most of the way to meet the very real points that he and others fairly made.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Clause 39

COMPENSATION FOR INJURIOUS AFFECTION

Lords Amendment: No. 78, in page 41, line 4 after "acquired" insert "or taken".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be convenient to take with this the following Lords Amendments:
No. 79, in page 41, line 9, after "acquired" insert "or taken".
No. 80, in line 11, after "63" insert "or 121".
No. 81, in line 12, after "7" insert "or 20".
No. 82, in line 22, after "61" insert "or 114".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Page: The courts have held that in assessing compensation for injurious affection regard could be had only to the effect on the land retained by the claimant of the works carried out on the land taken from the claimant himself and not to the effect of the whole of the works.
This is a matter that we discussed in Committee, arising out of the case Edwards v. Minister of Transport. The difficulty was that the clause as it stood covered injurious affection compensation arising under sections which covered

compensation for the acquisition of interests in land other than short tenancies. In the amendment we have covered cases of short tenancies and brought them within the benefit of the clause.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Clause 41

COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE WHERE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY PERSON OVER SIXTY

Lords Amendment: No. 84, in page 43, line 11, after "sixty" insert:
on the date there mentioned".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be convenient to take with this the following Lords Amendments:
No. 85, in page 43, line 13, after "age" insert "on that date".
No. 86, in line 14, after "age" insert "on that date".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Graham Page: Subsection (6) provides, inter alia, that in the case of a trade or business carried on by a company, the company may benefit from the clause if each shareholder, other than a minority shareholder, is an individual who has attained the age of 60 years and if each minority shareholder has either attained that age or is the spouse of a shareholder who has attained that age.
As drafted, the subsection did not provide any reference to a date by which the age of 60 has to be attained. The amendments achieve that by requiring that the age of 60 has to be attained by the date on which possession is given up to the acquiring authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 87, in page 43, line 23, leave out "subsection (4)(b) of section 34" and insert
subsection (1)(b) of section (Amount of disturbance payment)".

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are taking at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. Lords Amendment No. 89 is the one for discussion.

Mr. Page: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a case which was raised particularly by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). Clause 42 deals with compensation payable on compulsory acquisition in the case of short business tenancies, which included the tenant's right to apply for a new tenancy; but where the acquiring authority has become the landlord at the time when possession is taken from the tenant it could, without this amendment, defeat any claim by the tenant for a new lease. If the landlords determine the tenancy, the right to apply for a new tenancy will still be taken into account if the House accepts the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. some with Special Entry.

Clause 64

LAND AFFECTED BY SLUM CLEARANCE RESOLUTION

Lords Amendment: No. 130, in page 65, line 28, after "which" insert "(a)".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With 'his amendment we shall take Lords Amend-ments Nos. 131, 132, 142 and 143.

Mr. Page: When local authorities declare a clearance area, they may resolve to purchase added land—land surrounded by the clearance area—which is reasonably necessary to secure better shape to the land they are buying. These amendments enable owner-occupiers to serve blight notices without having to wait for the compulsory purchase order to be made.

Question put and agreed to [Special Entry].

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, all with Special Entry.

Orders of the Day — After Clause 66

Lords Amendment: No. 133, in page 67, line 20, at end insert new Clause J:

Land affected by new street orders

"J.—(1) Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land which—


(a) either—

(i) is within the outer lines prescribed by an order under section 159 of the Highways Act 1959 (orders prescribing minimum width of new streets); or
(ii) has a frontage to a highway declared to be a new street by an order under section 30 of the Public Health Act 1925 and lies within the minimum width of the street prescribed by any bye-laws or local Act applicable by virtue of the order; and

(b) is, or is part of—

(i) a dwelling erected before, or under construction on, the date on which the order is made; or
(ii) the curtilage of any such dwelling.

(2) The grounds on which objection may be made in a counter-notice to a blight notice served by virtue of subsection (1) above shall not include those specified in section 194(2)(b) or (c) of the Act of 1971.

(3) In relation to land within subsection (1) above "the appropriate authority" and "the appropriate enactment" for the purposes of sections 192 to 207 of the Act of 1971 shall be the highway authority for the highway in relation to which the order mentioned in that subsection was made and section 214(8) of the said Act of 1959 respectively.

(4) This section shall not enable a blight notice to be served in respect of any land in which the appropriate authority have previously acquired an interest either in pursuance of a blight notice served by virtue of this section or by agreement in circumstances such that they could have been required to acquire it in pursuance of such a notice."

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 134 and 135.

Mr. Page: This new clause encompasses a subject introduced in another place. It brings within the blight provisions all those dwellings on new streets which were under construction or were already in existence at the time when the respective new street orders were made.
New street orders prescribe centre lines of new streets and outer lines defining minimum width. The effect is to prohibit


erection of new buildings situated between the outer lines prescribed. The subsections make supplementary provisions but in general we have extended the blight provisions whereby an owner can serve a purchase notice if his property is blighted in cases where there are new street orders.
Perhaps I can go a little out of order, this being the last group of amendments, and thank the Opposition for the very valuable suggestions they made during the course of the Bill, a great number of which we have been able to meet. We are grateful to them for the very constructive way in which they approached the Bill—one could hardly call it opposition—and the way in which we managed to take the Bill through its previous stages with their help.

Mr. Mulley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear that we are all anxious for the Bill to become law from our efforts tonight. It will be of great benefit to many people, and I am glad that it is now a better Bill than when it started out—we are all agreed on that. For the Opposition, I thank the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for a most harmonious and constructive approach to the points we put forward. We are grateful that there has been such a satisfactory outcome.

Question put and agreed to

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, all with special entry.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jopling.]

Orders of the Day — DEE ESTUARY SCHEME

1.55 a.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: At this time of night I do not want to spend time arguing the case for the multipurpose Dee Estuary Scheme. As the Minister knows, this is a scheme for a barrage across the River Dee, which will provide water storage on a scale which will make it unnecessary to flood any more Welsh valleys. I was surprised to discover that the water storage aspect of the scheme has only lately been brought

into it. The original scheme was envisaged purely as a crossing device. The scheme will provide vastly better road communications between Merseyside and North Wales.
Either of these purposes would in itself probably suffice to justify the capital cost, last estimated at £60 million but no doubt now substantially more. There is also the bonus of a substantial improvement in the Deeside environment, and expanded opportunities for recreation in the area.
I do not believe that there is any longer room for argument on the merits of the case. The point I want to make is that the inevitable decision to go ahead with the scheme ought to be reached and made public, not in three, six or 12 months' time but now. On all too many occasions Ministers have said that they intend to announce a decision on this matter "before the recess". Let them reach and announce their decision before the Whitsun Recess.
The evidence is accumulating that the Government's policies for regional development are working and that the areas of traditionally high unemployment are about to experience a revival of economic activity such as they have not known for decades, particularly if, as I hope, the Government decide not to abolish the regional employment premium. In the long term, I have no fears for the future prosperity of North East Wales, and Deeside in particular. Its geographical situation ensures that it can never be regarded as peripheral, and the excellent reputation of its labour force is a magnet to industrialists seeking to expand outside the congested Midlands or the South East. In the long run, Deeside cannot but prosper.
But the decision of the nationalised Steel Corporation to phase out steel making at Shotton has cast a temporary blight over the area. Shotton is far and away the biggest employer in an area where there are, anyway, alarmingly few employers. If it is to go into decline, the whole area will go into decline, and even the certainty of eventual expansion may not suffice to prevent a fall in the level of economic activity which could be irreversible. I have argued on other occasions, and I shall go on arguing, that the decision to phase out steel making at


Shotton is a mistaken one, not merely because of the harm it will do to North East Wales but because of the risks which it involves for the whole British steel industry. But I have to face the possibility that the Steel Corporation will not come to its senses in time. In any case, there is bound to be a substantial drop in the number of jobs at Shotton if the works is to become fully competitive.
Whatever happens, therefore, there is bound to be a substantial reduction, perhaps a catastrophic reduction, in job opportunities in the area. I refer to "loss of jobs" and not "unemployment". I do not believe that there will be heavy unemployment, and I have done my best locally to dissipate fears of this. What there will be is something more insidious, no less deadly. As job prospects dwindle, more and more of the bright school leavers will think in terms of a career elsewhere. Fewer and fewer women will think in terms of getting a proper job. The unemployment figures will not look so very dreadful. But we in North-East Wales will have an older population doing less skilled jobs and bringing, not two large wage packets into the home, but one rather small one. Local tradesmen will feel the pinch, and local sporting and entertainment facilities will begin to wither away through lack of patronage. The whole area will begin to run down.
I am not painting an alarmist picture. It is beginning to happen. Already Shotton is running up against the problem that qualified school leavers do not want to go and work there. It is not surprising. There is something very demoralising about working in a contracting enterprise where one's best chance of promotion is for someone else to get the sack. There is now a real risk that the mentality of contraction will get a grip of Deeside.
I know that Ministers are doing all they can to bring in new jobs. I have no doubt that in the present atmosphere of burgeoning confidence in the rest of the country, they will have real success in bringing new good jobs to Deeside. But it is simply not possible, in the time available before British Steel intends to begin the process of rundown, to provide new jobs on anything like the scale required. New jobs may be provided in hundreds,

but old jobs will disappear by the thousand. That is why I argue that, if the disastrous decision is to go ahead, it must at the very least be postponed by three years.
Postponement of the rundown will not do much, however—I doubt whether it will do anything—to transform the gloomy climate which now prevails in eastern Flintshire. Something must be done in the next few weeks. Indeed, something ought to have been done six months ago to transform the way the Deesiders think of themselves and the way the rest of the country thinks about Deeside. Something must be done to make Deeside into an area of hope and expansion instead of one of gloom and contraction.
That something lies ready to hand. A decision now to press ahead rapidly with the Dee Estuary scheme could have indirect effects greater and more immediate than the direct benefits to be expected from the scheme. It has little—indeed, it has nothing—to do with the number of jobs involved in the actual construction of the project. I am well aware that many of the construction workers will come in from outside the area.
The real value of an immediate decision to press ahead with the scheme is that it would forthwith label Deeside not as an area where one traditional industry was declining but as an area where an exciting new technological investment project was taking place, and an area attractive to footloose industrialists seeking to take advantage of the opportunities for expansion opened up by the enlargement of the Common Market. The area would be even more attractive precisely because of what I described earlier as a bonus from the scheme, namely, the improvement to the environment and the facilities for leisure made available by the two huge lakes which are inherent in the scheme. Deeside would thus be an area well placed for road communications, with a willing and skilled labour force, excellent facilities for housing of all types, including the boss himself, and now, above all, an area where things were happening. This, surely, is the recipe both for attracting good new jobs to the area and for convincing the school leavers of Flintshire that their brightest future lies at their own doorstep.
I know that there are some misgivings that the scheme, by providing much faster road communications between North Wales and Merseyside, would intensify the present tendency for Flintshire to become a dormitory area for Merseyside. I think that these fears are mistaken. Certainly they are no argument against the scheme. They provide an argument for continuing the integrated approach to the scheme. It is vital that it should be developed in the interests of the area as a whole so as to foster balanced industrial development on both banks of the Dee.
I am not sure that this can be brought about effectively by co-operation between the various local authorities and Government bodies, not forgetting the water authority concerned, unless there is some active body in the middle with a rôle not merely as an intermediary but as an initiator, rather after the way in which the European Commission is intended to act as initiator between the member Governments. I believe that we shall need something like a Dee Estuary development corporation to ensure that the project not only goes ahead with a sense of urgency which has been dismally lacking so far, but that it is developed in such a way as not just to cause the minimum of upset and annoyance to existing bodies but so as to secure the maximum of advantage for all.
The scheme has hung fire for far too long. Its merits are incontestable. But every month's delay reduces its chances of restoring the economic health of North-East Wales. We must have a decision now.

2.5 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) for raising this very important subject and for the balanced speech to which he has treated us. It is a subject in which he has shown deep interest for a long time, and I welcome this opportunity of dealing with some of the more important issues at stake rather more fully than has yet been possible.
The proposals for the development of the Dee estuary are wide-ranging and imaginative. The project which has been

mooted is a multi-purpose scheme involving water supply, a road crossing, amenity and recreation. It is also an expensive project. The indications are that a road crossing with three or four reservoirs and associated works would cost somewhere between £80 million and £100 million.
It is crucial that we should examine all aspects of the project critically and carefully. We cannot do that without all the information about the water supply aspects. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House last August that the Government had decided that the water storage aspects should be examined in the light of the Water Resources Board's report on national strategies for water conservation. I emphasise the word "national" because there can be no doubt that a scheme of this size can only sensibly be considered in a national context.
We have not yet received the Water Resources Board's report, but it should be with us soon. I am advised that it is likely to be presented at about the end of this month.
Recent Press reports have suggested that the Dee estuary may find a favourable place in the recommended strategy, but I think it would be unwise to speculate on this tonight. Certainly it would be wrong to take decisions until we have had an opportunity to study the full contents of the report and to consider the question of the Dee in the wider context.
The intervening time has certainly not been wasted. A good deal of work has been done by officials of the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, in particular on the communications aspects of the scheme. The need for improved communications between North Wales and Merseyside is recognised by everyone. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have repeatedy drawn attention to existing road conditions in that part of the country, particularly in the vicinity of the existing Queensferry crossing and on the A55 from the outskirts of Chester to beyond Holywell.
We are well aware of the difficulties, and plans for the improvement of the present road network in the area are already well advanced. The construction of the Chester southerly bypass and


improvements of the A550 and A55 trunk roads will make a significant difference to traffic conditions in the next few years, and we have no reason to fear that the demands of traffic cannot adequately be net by these improvements until at least the end of the present decade. It is clear, however, that additional road capacity across the Dee is likely to be required sometime after 1980, and it is in that context that the highways aspects of the estuary project fall to be considered.
My hon. Friend has quite rightly referred to the problems at Shotton and mentioned the rôle of the Dee estuary project in helping to deal with the problems caused by the rundown in steel making at Shotton. The task force has been considering the possible contribution that a decision on the Dee crossing could make. I know that a number of representations have been made to it on this matter.
Although, as my hon. Friend has said, there is not a complete identity of view, it has been strongly argued by some that work on such a large project would in itself make a helpful contribution to relieving unemployment, that the prospect of improved communications with England and the main motorway network would be a powerful inducement to new industry, and that acceptance of the scheme with its vast capital investment— a point made by my hon. Friend—would give a great psychological boost to the area and do much to strengthen confidence in the future. I do not deny the psychological value of such an announcement. My hon. Friend placed particular emphasis on this point.
The Deeside area of Flintshire is one of the fastest growing areas in Wales. Between 1966 and 1971 the population increased by nearly 12 per cent., and all the forecasts are that growth on this scale will continue.
One of the problems is to evolve a land use strategy to deal with it. In this context we cannot ignore the difference in timing between the events with which the task force is concerned and the possible construction of a Dee crossing.
I emphasise that, working on the basis of the British Steel Corporation's strategy that the main job of the task force is to consider measures to help counter the rundown in steel making before 1980. The Dee crossing could not possibly make any significant physical contribution to this effort. Even if an immediate decision were taken to go ahead with the estuary project, the detailed and complex planning and preparatory procedures—and the legislative procedures—would be bound to take up several years and construction work could not begin much before the end of the present decade. Certainly motorists could not expect to drive their cars over the Dee nor housewives to get Dee estuary water through their taps before the early 1980s at least. It is, therefore, unrealistic to expect the estuary development proposals to make a contribution to employment prospects in the short term.
The first task of the Government will be to decide in principle whether the undoubted benefits that would result from a major multi-purpose development of the estuary are sufficient to justify the large capital investment that would be required.
As I have said, a scheme of this complexity, involving as it does major questions of communications, water supply, urban and industrial development and environmental issues, including important aspects of recreation and nature conservancy, must be considered in a national context, and it is essential that we should take care to reach the right conclusion.
The decision will have important implications for the whole of North Wales and a large part of England for many years to come. We will reach an answer as quickly as we can, but we must get the right answer. I appreciate why my hon. Friend is so concerned, but let no one underestimate our determination to find the right answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.